So this was a constitutional monarchy. constitutional monarchy

Constitutional monarchy

Parliamentary monarchy

Monarchy has an infantilizing effect.

The Savoyards, basically, are a monarchy.

The absolute monarchy was ended in Sweden.

We had to beat the European monarchy.

After the demise of the Portuguese monarchy, in 1910, Portugal almost restored its monarchy in a revolution known as the Monarchy of the North, though the attempted restoration only lasted a month before destruction.

That is the bombastic language of absolute monarchy.

The monarchy was replaced by a provisional government

like in the American Independence, this is an actual overthrowing of a monarchy, of a monarchy that controls a major world power.

Their crime was to call for a constitutional monarchy.

In 1755, the enlightened absolutist monarchy in Vienna acted.

At that point, the monarchy found itself completely isolated.

So you have the restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy.

I have to re establish the monarchy, you know.

And what is going to happen to the monarchy?

They want eventually for the monarchy to come back.

Constitutional monarchy limited the scope for wasteful spending on luxurious court life (as well as on military adventure) the hallmark of early modern autocratic monarchy.

This might explain some right wing populists animus against monarchy.

Algeria is not a monarchy. Algeria is not a dictatorship.

Brazil achieved independence with a constitutional monarchy established in 1822.

Political dissent is not tolerated in Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy.

In 1930 he conspired for an armed uprising against the Monarchy.

Freeman himself thought a federal monarchy only possible in the abstract.

But it's too late the people no longer trust the monarchy.

And 1815, you essentially have the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.

And then 1814 was the formal restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy

We want to eliminate the idea of having a monarchy altogether.

NEW YORK Does monarchy constitutional monarchy, that is, not the despotic kind have any redeeming features left? The arguments against maintaining kings and queens are mostly quite rational.

In Bhutan, the government moved from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy following planned parliamentary elections to the Tshogdu in 2003, and the election of a National Assembly in 2008.

So as you all recall, what our Founding Fathers were rejecting was a concept of monarchy, and the monarchy was basically based on a very simplistic concept of anatomy.

Hereditary monarchy, often backed by divine authority, has worked in the past.

And then there's monarchy and that's my role on the community, so ...

The National Action Charter brought huge hopes of a promised constitutional monarchy.

Do you think the people will agree to re establish the monarchy?

We'll leave the re establishment of the monarchy to the people's vote.

Democracy always degenerated into mob rule, monarchy into tyranny, and aristocracy into oligarchy.

European monarchies gathered against the new régime, to restore the French absolute monarchy.

Then, people said monarchy dominated everywhere because it was rooted in human nature.

And then there's monarchy, and that's my role on the community, so ... (Laughter)

Now you say you're not re establishing the monarchy, does that make sense?

You're asking help from the one who guarantees the wrecking of the monarchy?

Regarding the monarchy, there are those who believe me and those who don't.

Thus, while such a monarchy as that of Norway is really a Crowned Republic, and indeed a democratic republic, monarchy was in Russia before 1917, and in Turkey before 1905, and to a less degree in Germany and the Austro Hungarian Monarchy till 1918, an appreciable force in the conduct of affairs .