From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I'll invite anyone who wants to add something to do so remembering the following 3 points:

1- The subject is meant to be controversial among IB inhabitants but not among us. In other words, if anyone add a country in it or use the concept in another article, it should be be seen as the point view of a person or group *there* and does not imply that *we* see it that way or that applying the term to a particular regime is even fair (although it should probably appear to make some sense in the context).

2- While I did not go into too much details, potential entries into "Empty Thrones" are any countries which use monarchist symbols but whose head of state is a regent, a military council, a minister, etc... The reason for this state of affairs could be: death of the last legitimate pretender, current conflict, historical quirk, etc... Excluded (although the term could be applied in other articles for propaganda purpose) are constitutional-monarchies and countries which simply have a weak ruler. Also excluded are countries that are monarchies in all but name (i.e. a "republic" with an omnipotentn hereditary "president-for-life") and those communist countries with a monarch (like bavaria and one of the modern chinese state).

3- Pr. Langevin genuinely did not intend to offend anyone and is still baffled by all the commotion. While his comments could be misinterpreted, no "quotations" from him or the book should be openly hostile to a given regime. He might state that a particular king has not been seen for decades but he would not speculate has to wether he might be dead.

I would say to link this to cultural mentalities and to a link on the Books page, possibly. Otherwise, I like this. A nice little addition to IB. BoArthur 15:24, 28 November 2005 (PST)
Ditto. What would the adjective form be? Anarexo-Monarchic? The only point I would make is it makes me think of anorexia + monarch. ;-) A king or queen who starves himself/herself? Nik 18:10, 28 November 2005 (PST)
guess the adjective would be that. Regarding the term sounding like anorexic, the whole point of his treaty was that in these regime the link was quite *thin* between the monarch and actual power, so.....
--Marc Pasquin 03:07, 29 November 2005 (PST)
Question: what does "Pr." mean? I hazard the guess of priest/father (pere, if French; priest if English). Close? Far away? [PB]
"Professor" --Marc Pasquin 05:25, 3 December 2005 (PST)
Cor! Nowhere close! (We use "Prof." in the US). Thanks for clearing it up! [PB]

I like the whole idea of Anarexomonarchism. I would only note that the NAL doesn't really seem to fit, because it dóes have a monarch! That "monarch" can be one of several persons depending on circumstance, but it is not like any of the various monarchless monarchies floating around as described in the article. The NAL's monarchical position is enshrined in its very Covenant: "saving always the Faith and Allegiance owed to our Sovereign". It is determined by circumstance the nature of this sovereign: Consequently, the NAL courts have always held that sovereign honors may be paid to any of the English, Scottish, Kemrese, or Scandinavian monarchs, depending on the circumstances. They must furthermore allow for such honours to be paid to God, sovereign of the world, or to the General Moderator in lieu of any other (earthly) monarch in certain provinces. Could you explain how the NAL is fit into the theory? Or is this an example of "controversy among IB residents"? Elemtilas

Perhaps he also used it for nations with a monarch who did not live in that country, i.e., personal unions? Though, in some personal unions, the monarch still wields actual power, and indeed, it falls on the same absolute monarchy-constitutional monarchy spectrum as ordinary monarchies Nik 18:10, 28 November 2005 (PST)
Then much of the Commonwealth would fall under that category.
The reason why he included NAL in the book was that monarch was more an abstract concept then an actual person (different provinces can interpret the text differently to suit their needs) and that the political system is largely proto-republican. Pr Langevin used it as an example of using an absent (non-specific) monarch as a unifying factor. I'd suspect that Padraic reaction would be typical of NAL politicians and a good example of why the book proved controversial.
Personal unions and constitutional monarchy would be beyond the scope of his book unless they purposefully obscured the monarch: "the king is in a coma. Until he dies (God forbid) we cannot enthrone the pretender. Obviously, the Prime Minister will carry the burden of rule until things change".
Another example would be a small country that sign a treaty of protection with another one. As part of the treaty, they declare fealty to the second country's King but make sure he is constitutionaly forbiden from entering the first country (as protection against annexion).
--Marc Pasquin 03:07, 29 November 2005 (PST)
Understandable, though I suspect most American scholars wouldn't agree with him! [PB]
Seems to me the fact this idea actually stirs debate among us as to its appropriateness is good evidence that such would be its (even stronger) reaction in IB itself. Along those lines, it seems to me one of the interesting thematic ideas in the history of IB is that the usefulness of monarchy was recognized on some fundamental level so that overall monarchies tended to be retained, even if in form only. Yet the impulse to change, to reform, to revolutionize did not vanish but rather became transformed into a dizzying array of social experiments, factions and the like. Zahir 09:12, 29 November 2005 (PST)
More to the point, it's not so much that monarchy was seen as useful and retained as much as IB didn't have the birth of the democratic republic to offer a valid alternative. France certainly had its revolution, but the results and effects were as terrible *there* as *here*. Otherwise, IB has its share of "republics", but none of them are like the US or based on its model. They're all more like the Roman republic under the Caesars: dictatorships in fact if not in name, that have some kind of representative body who take more or less of a role in government depending on the present ruler. IBs more enlightened monarchies have seen that elements of democracy can and should be incorporated into the system in order to preserve the system, improve the lot of the citizenry and ensure liberty and justice. Hence, we see (as you say) that monarchies are retained, but they are retained as constitutional entities with democratic principles and properly enshrined constitutions. Americans *there* would disagree also with their monarchy being a "unifying factor", as it is clear that each province (except the original European provinces) is free to choose a monarch or no monarch at all. (And I'm sure that the notion of the individual choosing his own monarch has been broached in the past as well -- though I don't know what the results were.) So, monarchy is nòt a unifying factor for them. I can certainly see how any whiff of comparison with SNORism would put most westerners right off, though! No one can make a good comparison with Nazism *here*, after all, and SNORism is about as bad as IB has gotten! Agreed that debate among us *here* might be a good indicator of hotly contested debate *there*!
I'm reminded of Discworld's Ankh-Morpork as a good example of anorexomonarchism. They hád a king at one time, but the line failed; rulers called "patricians" took over day-to-day governance in lieu and there are still many trappings of the old monarchy, including noble families, left over. Gondor of Middle Earth is another good example of what Langevin is getting at. I'ld be very interested in knowing what that one country is that banned the book. I suspect Russia. We'll see... Elemtilas


doubts on the term

Just my two groats. Are you sure about term anarexo? It sounds like anorexia... it seems to have similar origin (anorexia < an+orexis /< oregein/), but instead of short reg- with meaning "straight, right", I would use rég- with meaning "ruler". So anaregal monarchism or better "deregal", cos it means not negation, but rather absence of. -- Jan II.

I'm perfectly open to another term if it sound better. I was trying to go for something that *sounded* a bit like anarchy so "ana" (as in anathema)+rex (I fully admit it might be a bit of pig greco-latin).
as for your suggestion, anaregal sound good but deregal sounds (too me) like "undoing the monarchy". After checking a latin dictionary, how would abdoregalism sounds like ? From: Abdo[to put away , withdraw, remove, secrete, hide] + regalis [of a king , royal, regal]. Would be shorter too.-- 15:52, 29 November 2005 (PST)
Yes, _abdoregal_ seems to be very good candidate! -- Jan II.
How about something like *soliovacantism (Empty Throne), compare with soliovacantismsedevacantism Nik 17:31, 29 November 2005 (PST)
Abdomonarchism (rather than abdoregal -- hide the monarchy rather than hide the regal something-or-other) sounds good though stuffy. No one on Earth would know what abdo- is supposed to mean except the Kernowmen. And they'd only scratch their heads in confusion, saying "Les Dinguedongues! They want to carry away the king (ab-) and then bring him back again (do-)!" for double prefixes are not at all uncommon.
Perhaps Langevin could have coined several terms to describe various situations? Abdomonarchism might describe a system where the royal rulers are set aside (either permanently or temporarily) while some kind of non-royal regent takes over. Perhaps like in Franco's Spain. Then soliovacantism could be used to describe situations where thrones come up empty by natural causes. I might say that the NAL could be described as abdomonarchical, since the actual person of the king(s) are removed from the mundanity of running a country while not being removed from the scene entirely. [PB]
But if he'd used several terms, it surely wouldn't be nearly as controversial, since it wouldn't lump together such systems as SNORist Russia and the NAL Nik 15:12, 30 November 2005 (PST)
Whaddevah! At least this way, his "theory" fits the facts. From an inhabitant's point of view anyway! :) [PB]
How about this: M. Langevin used a single term, perhaps my solivacantism for all of these variations. Later critics have argued that it should be seperated into several concepts. Perhaps "Natural soliovacantism" (empty throne by natural causes), "Artificial soliovacantism" (SNOR type situation), "Abdomonarchism" (King "set aside"), and maybe a couple more Nik 19:24, 30 November 2005 (PST)

Vote Please !

please vote on which term you think would be most appropriate for what Pr. Langevin described (see point 2 above). This would be the term he used in the book. Other writters might have later coined other terms (for the reasons descussed above) but this vote is for the one used originaly.

Please also take into account Langevin's intent and meaning: "...the term X is used to refer to regimes which maintain symbols and practices inspired by their royalist past but without actualy being ruled by a head of state from a noble house."

  • Anarexo-Monarchism (non-king):
  • anaregalism (non-sovereign):
  • deregalism (absence of sovereign):
  • abdoregalism (removed/hidden sovereign): [DZ] DH [MP] [NT]
  • soliovacantism (empty throne): [PB]
  • sedevacantism (empty throne): [DJ]
On a lark, I went back to research the roots of these words, and have some major problems with the choices we've come up with.
"Ana-" means back, upward or again. Hence anaclisis (physical or emotional dependence); anadydimus (twins separate below but joined up at the head); anagogic (spiritually uplifting, mystical interpretation). "A- / an-" is the prefex we probably want. Like anoxic, abiotic, amoral. I would submit that "anarexo-" / "anaregalism" means reliance upon the king or sovereign. This would be contrary to Langevin's definition which stipulates no such reliance on the person of a sovereign.
"Regalism" is the doctrine of supremacy of [a] sovereign, especially in ecclesiastical matters. "Deregalism" doesn't fit Langevin's definition, which is a retaining of monarchical institutions rather than a moving away. "Abdoregalism" doesn't fit because there is still a monarch, though the monarch is "hidden" or "set aside". It describes the NAL somewhat (its monarch is hidden somewhere in Legalese but is still very much in existence), and so would remove any controversy felt by American scholars.
"Sedevacantism" has real and very specific definitions *here*, namely, the state of affairs that exists for the time from the death of one pope til the naming of the successor; also the (Catholic) doctrine which teaches that the personal heresy of a cleric invalidates his holding the office and anything promulgated by him -- for example, even though a pope (who has for whatever reason turned heretic or teaches contrary to Church tradition/scripture) occupy the Chair of St. Peter, there is no rightful Pope of Rome. Hence, the chair (sedes) is really empty. Not too far away from Donatism, in that respect. This latter definition is not so important in IB since there was no "Vatican II", but the ideas behind it do exist *there*. *Here* it is the belief of a vocal minority of traditionalists.
I think that leaves soliovacantism as the only one that comes close to what Langevin is actually after. I like the pun between anorexia / anarexo-, but it just doesn't fit. [PB]
I vote for abdoregalism because that is the one I'm positive I can pronounce. Not terribly scientific, but there it is. <g> Zahir 09:48, 2 December 2005 (PST)
I put you down for abdoregalism. So far, a three-way tie! Great! [PB]
I have to say that none of these terms strike me as particularly pretty. "Sedevacantism" comes closest, but if Padraic says that the term is pretty much restricted to the pope, then perhaps it's not appropriate in this case. "Soliovacantism"? Not bad, but not pretty either. The trouble is perhaps that we are trying to cover two different concepts: that of an eternally vacant throne (Russia, Hungary) or that of a living king who is too far away to ever sit on it (NAL). I can't think of a good-sounding Latin/Greek/hybrid word right not, but I think it should include the word "monarchism". Probably something along the lines of "vacant crown monarchism" or "empty throne monarchism". "Absentomonarchism" is certainly not good Latin, not even a good hybrid, but something along those lines, perhaps? --IJzeren Jan 11:09, 2 December 2005 (PST)
"Amonarchic-monarchism" ? --Marc Pasquin 11:16, 2 December 2005 (PST)
Well, we have Langevin himself to go on. His intent is to look at government systems that have retained monarchical practices even when they themselves are no longer ruled by kings. It shouldn't matter whether the throne is eternally vacant (untrue, since all they'd need to do is invite a foreign potentate to sit on that throne, or else elect a new king) or the king is far away. Diana is Queen of Australasia, but that doesn't stop Langevin from including countries like that (and the NAL) in his treatis, since they actually have monarchs! Frankly, I wonder what his real purposes were. It strikes me as a bit shoddy to have done so poor research into his topic! Would be nice to see some more work done on the actual article. Thus far, we've got more here in the discussion than in the original article! ;)
In any event, soliovacantism is about as close as we're going to get to "empty throne" using Latin roots. How about "kenothronal monarchism" or "kenothronism"? Kenos = empty in Greek. "Kenokathedrism"? I don't think any of those are any prettier! How about "abhadrasanic monarchism"? ;) [PB]
I feel that abdoregalism is more in line with what was originally put forward in the proposal, that they keep the trappings of monarchism, sans regio.
Well, I don't disagree that abdoregalism (hidden monarch) does describe a good many of the countries that Langevin treated. Bùt, I don't think the word is really in line with what Langevin held as his thesis, namely, that certain countries had royal trappings without having a king. The countries that seem to be fairly well described by abdoregalism do in fact have real living monarchs -- but they are "hidden" on account of being far away in place. Whenever Diana visits the NAL or Australasia, she comes not as Queen of England, but Queen of Australasia or Queen of America. [PB]
Just a note, australasia wouldn't fit in the description. The various provinces (save for aothearoa of course) realy follow a monarchist system. The australasian government is not realy in a position superior to the provinces (more like sideway-cordinators) and there is no equivalent to the NAL's covenant. The title of "Queen of australasia" is more in my mind an affectation then a fact. Queen victoria *here* styled herself "Empress of India" even though part of india was at the time (and for decades afterward) under French rule. --Marc Pasquin 18:18, 4 December 2005 (PST)
Are you saying that Australasia (apart from Aotearoa) is no more than a collection of colonies? Like the 15 or so American colonies before the 1770s where each has an individual relationship with England? I should think that they'd have become more of a unitary country in the XX century! Somewhat like *here*. [If not, then I think we need to work on that! Can't be having with a modern first world first class place being stuck in the middle of the XVIIJ century!] After all, they waged a pretty serious war with imperial China in 1949 and won the conflict. But even so, their monarch is "abdita" -- hidden away in London rather than present in Australasia's capital (whatever that might be). Basically, I don't see how abdoregalism is essentially different from plain jane monarchism. Both have real monarchs, the difference being one of location of said monarch. Please advise if I've gotten something wrong with Australasia! Elemtilas [PB]
basicaly, they are similar to british dominions *here* pre-1921. --Marc Pasquin 16:46, 5 December 2005 (PST)
Each being a separate dominion, then? That's not so bad: each is a self-governing state. I would assume, then, that "Australasia" is a sort of confederation that handles external affairs and defence? Elemtilas

Well, given the above, I think "soliovacantism" would have my preference too, but I can't say I'm particularly happy with it. I really wonder if we can't come up with something slightly more smashing.

Anyway, imagine that the king d[i]es unexpectedly. His eldest son, the pretender to the throne, is only six year old. So what happens? His mother, or the king's brother or something, will act as a regent until the boy is old enough for the throne. Would that be included in the book too?

One minor note about Russia: the throne was never officially vacant until 1978 (IIRC). The czar had died in 1934, but this was never made public. Officially, he was still in charge, even though he never appeared in public. --IJzeren Jan 05:28, 3 December 2005 (PST)

Normal type of Regency wouldn't have been included nor any where the situation is genuinely temporary. By genuinely, I mean that their is not purposefull effort by the powers that be to hide the truth or prevent the crowning of a replacement. Others case are when the official line claim that a king is the head of states but laws are written is such a way as to deny him *any* power. This last point should not be confused with constitutional-monarchy where the monarch do have some form of power, usualy as an arbitrator of last resort.
The controversy over the book would have come from the fact that Langevin (who tried to be as neutral as possible) would have excluded a despised regency (if done according to the rules) but included a well like government that had staged a coup in all but name against a tyranical king (only of course if they had stayed token monarchists). from that point of view, the russian chapter would probably deal with the 1978-1992 period --Marc Pasquin 06:00, 3 December 2005 (PST)
My vote goes for abdoregalism. Also, many countries has its own terminology, given historically, how they describe the situation, may be as _kenothronism_ is or in Hungary _Palatinate/Nádorispánság_ (since Palatine is the one, who is regent, ie. actually ruling). -- Jan II.

An idea

Padraic suggested "Kenothronism". It seems to me that maybe that should be an already-established term *there* for a more restricted concept, specifically, a situation wherein laws refer to a king who does not exist. It would not include kings in other lands (personal unions) nor the NAL situation where the term is somewhat abstract, but does still refer to specific individuals, varying by context. It would apply to situations like New Francy (perhaps the nation for which the term was originally coined in the 19th century sometime?) and SNORist Russia. Professor Langevin's book suggested that kenothronism was merely one manifestation of a larger phenomenon, which he referred to as whatever eventually wins our vote Nik 17:58, 3 December 2005 (PST)

If like you suggest a term had been coined for it in the 19th century, I'm wondering if that would mean that NF is not the only one that followed that path. I know that *here* NF counterpart has been (rightly or not) blamed for recent sovereignist parties in other countries that used the same type of etapist, purely political way of trying to achieve independence (Catalonia, Bavaria & to a lesser extent, Scotland). It probably would not be too hard for some other nation to have adapted NF method of government and it would make for a good excuse for a colony to have separated from the mother country (even if they later on switched to another, more traditional, type of government). -- 18:35, 3 December 2005 (PST)

I've put a proposal up for Kenothronism, including controversy over classifying SNORist states, and Professor Langevin's book. I'm supposing there were other such states, perhaps some of the Middle Eastern states, at least for a period following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire Nik 18:51, 4 December 2005 (PST)


It seems that Abdoregalism is the consensus of the group. Should we move this page, then, to Abdoregalism? Nik 02:51, 7 December 2005 (PST)

Personal tools