zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
Not to mention that she was the last monarch to have any memory of WWII and served as an ambulance mechanic. Now that generation that remembered the horrors of fascism has mostly passed and we find ourselves in a period that seems to have many echos of the 1930s with a new rise of authoritarianism and fascism around the world.

>>UncleO+Jk
> Not to mention that she was the last monarch to have any memory of WWII

That's probably not true. There's the Dalai Lama and Simeon II of Bulgaria, who were minors but at least Simeon surely remembers (his father died in suspicious circumstances, he had an unconstitutional regency, and then he was dethroned, expelled and spent his life in exile).

> Now that generation that remembered the horrors of fascism has mostly passed and we find ourselves in a period that seems to have many echos of the 1930s with a new rise of authoritarianism and fascism around the world

It's honestly infuriating that with the wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips so many people are so easily making the same mistakes as a century earlier.

>>sofixa+um
Is the Dalai Lama a monarch? I see a resemblance in how monarchy works to how the Dalai Lama is chosen, but it's not obvious to me this is the same kind of thing.

>>tialar+Go
Not a 'monarch', but a 'sovereign' would be a better fit.

>>valara+Mp
Single Ruler for life is still a monarch. The Pope is a monarch in Vatican.

Monarchy is not necessary hereditary. And replacing monarch with sovereign, doesn't change the fact that it's a monarchy.

>>JAlexo+Xs
Monarch is not a precisely defined term. It usually (though not in the case of popes) also requires that the holder be part of the country’s traditional aristocracy or nobility. Lifetime heads of state of regimes issued from modern revolutions (North Korea or Iran, for example) are not usually considered monarchs.

I guess the only real definition of monarch is social and cultural: someone who claims to be one and is broadly recognized as such.