[nabsgood]

Which time period.

It certainly had a hereditary period, it just tended not to be based on genetics.

[Sttim]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Which time period.

It certainly had a hereditary period, it just tended not to be based on genetics. It seems in general that the Dominate period (from Diocletian onwards) was more monarchical then the Principate (Octavian to the Severans), but generally the dynasties that emerged didn't last too long.

[no02rSx2]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I just love when people try and talk in categories without defining them before. QFT. If you need intense discussion to decide which of two artificial categories something belongs it, you ought to put it in neither and examine it as an individual case.

[km2000]

Monarchy in general just means that one rules, which was the case in Rome from the principate on. Monarchy does not have to be hereditary - there can be other forms. Then it depends how you use "dictatorship" here, a monarchy can be also a dictatorship (doesn't have to be of course).

[Angelinaaiiiiiiiii]

Originally posted by BeBro
Monarchy in general just means that one rules, which was the case in Rome from the principate on. Monarchy does not have to be hereditary - there can be other forms. Then it depends how you use "dictatorship" here, a monarchy can be also a dictatorship (doesn't have to be of course). in contemporary English not every one man dictatorship is a monarchy. Saudi Arabia IS a monarchy, but say Libya is not. There are two differences - one is hereditary status, the other is ceremonial surrounding the ruler. North Korea today is (in practice) hereditary. But has no ceremony. Central African Empire had monarchical ceremony, but was never passed on. Both are "grey areas"

[Htb48JBf]

As someone said, the Romans themselves would not have called their system a MOnarchy, as the title of Emperor was supposedly given by the Senate. As nominal as this became, that was what supposedly seperated their system from the hated past of Kings.

The Kings were elected by the Senate when Rome was a monarchy.

[Bromikka]

The second Flavian dynasty lasted much longer. It began with Constantine the Great and ended with Valentinian III in the West and Theodosius II in the East.

[Duseshoug]

[iOqedeyH]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


in contemporary English not every one man dictatorship is a monarchy. Saudi Arabia IS a monarchy, but say Libya is not. There are two differences - one is hereditary status, the other is ceremonial surrounding the ruler. North Korea today is (in practice) hereditary. But has no ceremony. Central African Empire had monarchical ceremony, but was never passed on. Both are "grey areas" Lots of ceremony in N. Korea.





Does the fact he doesn't wear puffy shirts and powdered wigs make a difference?

[expabsPapsgag]

From the North Korean constitution:

Article 4. The sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs―the Supreme People’s Assembly and local People’s Assemblies at all levels.

Thus, I'm willing to bet he claims authority from being elected by the SPA. Except that:

Article 106. The Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly is the highest organ of State power when the Supreme People’s Assembly is not in session.

zomfg! The person who should technically be in charge of the "highest organ of state power" should be....Kim Yong-nam!

But wait...

Article 11. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

I suppose that, since the WPK is not an organ of the state (?) but something that exists outside of it (like the Papacy) by the North Korean constitution Kom Jong-Il would derive his authority as head of the WPK.

Wow! If Article 11 wasn't there, Kim Jong-Il would be required to give up power!

[Qeiafib]

I guess nothing kills a discussion faster than North Korean constitutional law