Question: Why did the separatists want to, well, separate?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
The Pope is in there, because Vatican City is a sovereign state [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty], and the Pope is its sovereign ruler. The Wikipedia article made that point, too.
The point of the mention of elective monarchy here was to prove that monarchies are not necessarily hereditary in the real world.
I agree that, in a hypothetical form of government where the monarch is elected by the people, it would be a form democracy (one that apparently does not exist in the real world).
(It's perhaps worth mentioning that in the United States, the president is not elected directly by the people, but rather by the electoral college, in which the electors receive their instructions from the states they represent, and they vote accordingly, faithless electors notwithstanding. For each state, the instructions to its electors are determined by the popular vote within that state, with all but two states being winner take all, and two, Maine and Nebraska, assigning one elector to vote how each Congressional district goes, after allocating two to the winner of the state [https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/]. This is historically one of the compromises needed to form the union in the first place, to give smaller states some compensation for losing their sovereignty in a union with larger states.)
(The point of the previous paragraph is that as long as it's not too indirect,* the election of the monarchy need not be by popular vote, for the form of government to qualify as "genuinely democratic." We're talking about a world government here, and compromises similar to those mentioned in the previous paragraph might be pragmatically necessary to make it happen.)
* - How indirect is too indirect is arguably debatable.
Yeah, I get it. And I guess he does fir the definition of a monarch.
Would be interesting to learn what actual day-to-day rulership decisions the Pope makes for Vatican City.
What's the difference between a monarch and an emperor or dictator?
While not necessarily endorsing these views, I think there are many interesting points made here, and it meshes generally with my understanding of the usages of the terms.
From Giacomo Valentini [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-monarch-an-emperor-and-a-dictator]:
A monarch inherited his or her title from the previous monarch. In the past, a monarch would typically say they derived their right to reign directly from God (divine right).
An emperor is the term used normally to designate a monarch who presides over a vast territory, usually comprising diverse cultures and languages.
Thus, Queen Victoria was queen of England but also empress of the British Empire.
In the modern world, a dictator is somebody who rules not by inheritance but because they would typically have usurped power by force or cunning.
However, the word dictator comes from an ancient Roman rule whereby at times of national emergency - such as invasion by an enemy - the Roman senate would appoint an absolute ruler, called dictator, who for one year could take all the decisions he deemed necessary to overcome the emergency, without consulting the senate or other elected politicians. After the year expired, the dictator would have to relinquish power.
An emperor is the term used normally to designate a monarch who presides over a vast territory, usually comprising diverse cultures and languages.
Thus, Queen Victoria was queen of England but also empress of the British Empire.
In the modern world, a dictator is somebody who rules not by inheritance but because they would typically have usurped power by force or cunning.
However, the word dictator comes from an ancient Roman rule whereby at times of national emergency - such as invasion by an enemy - the Roman senate would appoint an absolute ruler, called dictator, who for one year could take all the decisions he deemed necessary to overcome the emergency, without consulting the senate or other elected politicians. After the year expired, the dictator would have to relinquish power.
I'm thinking that a million years ago, in the star wars universe, droids were told to teraform the barren universe and build cities, so as people explore the galaxy, they find life bearing planets with massive unoccupied cites or small vacant towns depending on the whimsy of the droids and the scarcity of local resources.
So, when some %%%% pictches a flag on an empty yet pretamed world, it's really not so impressive if they want to be called King.
Meanwhile on Mandalorian a couple weeks back...
"We don't mind being slaves for a little bit, because you'll all be dead soon, and we'll inherit every thing."
"soon" might mean several thousand years, unless the droids know something we don't.
So, when some %%%% pictches a flag on an empty yet pretamed world, it's really not so impressive if they want to be called King.
Meanwhile on Mandalorian a couple weeks back...
"We don't mind being slaves for a little bit, because you'll all be dead soon, and we'll inherit every thing."
"soon" might mean several thousand years, unless the droids know something we don't.
While the Pope is an absolute monarch, he is obviously not directly involved in the management of Vatican City. The Governorate takes care of this. Below the building where the offices of the Governorate reside, I visited them once as a boy (they are not open to tourists).
What all this really boils down to is: a title means whatever a given society decides it means, and hands them out by whatever methods and conditions they decide to do so. Consistency, logic, precedent, and etymology don't matter until they do, but even then only until they don't anymore. That is how a civilization do.
So yes, a person can be elected King of a planet. The head of a suspiciously well armed trading conglomerate can be called a Viceroy. The daughter of a (presumed?) Duke can be referred to as a Princess. A Captain can be prompted to a Commander. And "Grand Moff" is totally a thing, and not pair of words George Lucas just made up because it sounded important and slightly less silly and easier to pronounce than "Grande Mouff".
Also; it's a space fantasy fairy-tale. Don't overthink it.
So yes, a person can be elected King of a planet. The head of a suspiciously well armed trading conglomerate can be called a Viceroy. The daughter of a (presumed?) Duke can be referred to as a Princess. A Captain can be prompted to a Commander. And "Grand Moff" is totally a thing, and not pair of words George Lucas just made up because it sounded important and slightly less silly and easier to pronounce than "Grande Mouff".
Also; it's a space fantasy fairy-tale. Don't overthink it.
Last edited:
Honestly, I've had that so long I don't even remember why I picked it. In my defence it's been like two decades.Too late, Reverend, if that is your real title!
It happens
Bail was consort to Breha Organa who was Queen of Alderraan.
L
I doubt that the Imperial courts would have allowed that, once they got established.
Leia was a bastard?
I doubt that the Imperial courts would have allowed that, once they got established.
If it kept their power going I doubt they care much. Grease some palms and they look the other way.
"Did you not see her cousins bitching about how she was not a real Organna?"
I thought that was just about being adopted.
Or did I just misunderstand what a consort was for a minute?
They are married.
That's not Imperials or their courts. That's infighting amongst royals. Hardly new or noteworthy.
A consort is the spouse of the reigning monarch.
We've already been over this; a title means whatever they say it means.
In this instance though; generally speaking "Consort" in this context can mean the spouse of the Sovereign. It's a way on indicating that only one of them holds supreme executive authority, and it ain't the Consort. It's complicated, but it basically boils down a patriarchal discomfort with the idea of a ruling Queen. Because obviously to that way of thinking, if the Queen's husband holds the title "King", then he's *really* in charge right? Because men outrank women, ergo a King outranks a Queen; QED! So they started calling the husband of a ruling Queen "Consort" to spare the male nobility from undergoing the mental gymnastics necessary to parse the concept of a married woman being the boss.
I don't know for a fact (since I don't care enough to look it up), but I'm pretty sure Camilla is the first time the wife of a reigning King of Britain has been called anything other than just "Queen" (without it being at the centre of a potential constitutional crisis.)
Not even remotely close to the first.
I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous statement.
Yes, but mostly no.
Yes, in the sense that Camilla is the first, or at least one of very few, queen consorts to be regularly referred to as "Queen Consort", but mostly no in the sense that every woman who became HM The Queen via marriage rather than inheriting in her own right was a "queen consort" (or laterally HM The Queen Dowager/Queen Mother) rather than "HM The Queen Regnant" as Victoria and Elizabeth I & II "properly" are.
