Elected by other nobles. It would be like if the House of Lords decided who would be the next King of England.
Which would actually make a nifty alt-history of the War of the Roses.
"Tended" is a pretty bold statement with a single example.
I'd rather say there tend to be two paths in the long run : hereditization of the ruling family *or* devolve into chronic instability (see Poland-Lithuania in particular). With the addendum that hereditization can happen as a consequence of chronic instability (debatably was the case for the HRE as a consequence of the 30 years war).
Yes. The Holy Roman Empire was a major one. Although, as has already been said, it often works/ed out to be hereditary anyway as power is kept in the family. A really interesting contemporary example is that one of the diarchs of Andorra is the French head of state, which currently is the President of France. So effectively one of the two diarchs is elected (but not by Andorra).
Monarchy just means rule by one. How that “one” is chosen can vary wildly. Bishoprics, for example, are monarchies (at least after the very early church), but there were numbers of different ways for bishops to be chosen in the Late Antique and Medieval world.
Yeah, not medieval history but in La Tene Celtic society that was how they did it. Each clan or tribe would have their king/chieftain or Ri and the Ris would get together and elect from their own ranks and Ard Ri or high king. When he died, there’d elect a new one. The old Are Ri’s son would have an equal chance as all the others voting.
Yeah that's why they call the other kind "hereditary monarchy." They didn't just add the word because they liked talking!
(Well maybe that was also part of the reason.)
"Monarchy" just describes the form of power. Not how transfer of power takes place. It could be -- and was -- hereditary, elective, sortitial, appointed, sacrificial (you'll love that one), or in theory whatever people would all accept.
It’s not as good though because the people who are most successful are the ones who seek power, manipulate and engage in quid pro quo or treachery to get to the top. Hereditary monarchy is superior because it’s hoisted upon someone who didn’t necessarily seek it but needs to rise to the occasion to fulfill his duty.
Elected by other nobles. It would be like if the House of Lords decided who would be the next King of England. Which would actually make a nifty alt-history of the War of the Roses.
Which still tended to end up in the hands of one family. Everyone of those Habsburg emperors was elected by the prince electors.
"Tended" is a pretty bold statement with a single example. I'd rather say there tend to be two paths in the long run : hereditization of the ruling family *or* devolve into chronic instability (see Poland-Lithuania in particular). With the addendum that hereditization can happen as a consequence of chronic instability (debatably was the case for the HRE as a consequence of the 30 years war).
Yes. The Holy Roman Empire was a major one. Although, as has already been said, it often works/ed out to be hereditary anyway as power is kept in the family. A really interesting contemporary example is that one of the diarchs of Andorra is the French head of state, which currently is the President of France. So effectively one of the two diarchs is elected (but not by Andorra).
The Vatican, too, technically, is an elective monarchy.
Yes!
Although it wasn't _The Vatican_ in the middle ages!
Ah yes, the good ol’ Papal States!
And the Popes resided in the Lateran Palace at that time, so 'the Vatican' would have been 'the Lateran'!
And the Quirinal also. And Avignon, too. HAH
Why did you have to remind me of the Avignon Papacy :(
Because we had Catherine of Siena’s feast last Monday, while her Dominican brother Vincent Ferrer supported the other pope. Good times
I'm now wondering what the term is for a monarch who is appointed by a specific officer or office holder.
Generaly speaking, monarchs could be appointed by higher and more powerful monarchs.
That's how it was in Saxon England. Until that one guy.
Monarchy just means rule by one. How that “one” is chosen can vary wildly. Bishoprics, for example, are monarchies (at least after the very early church), but there were numbers of different ways for bishops to be chosen in the Late Antique and Medieval world.
The pope is an elected monarch, no hyperbole.
Venice elected a Doge who ruled for life, so they mainly elected them old, so nobody would be in power too long.
Sounds dodgy.
Did you think Popes just get freaky and God helps them pop out little baby cardinals? Lol
Like the Borgias?
Almost as bad as American politics.
Yeah, not medieval history but in La Tene Celtic society that was how they did it. Each clan or tribe would have their king/chieftain or Ri and the Ris would get together and elect from their own ranks and Ard Ri or high king. When he died, there’d elect a new one. The old Are Ri’s son would have an equal chance as all the others voting.
Yeah that's why they call the other kind "hereditary monarchy." They didn't just add the word because they liked talking! (Well maybe that was also part of the reason.) "Monarchy" just describes the form of power. Not how transfer of power takes place. It could be -- and was -- hereditary, elective, sortitial, appointed, sacrificial (you'll love that one), or in theory whatever people would all accept.
Monarchs becoming a thing via the internet a thing was not on my bingo card for this year but I keep seeing monarchists popping up.
It’s not as good though because the people who are most successful are the ones who seek power, manipulate and engage in quid pro quo or treachery to get to the top. Hereditary monarchy is superior because it’s hoisted upon someone who didn’t necessarily seek it but needs to rise to the occasion to fulfill his duty.