On the insanity of kings as an argument against monarchy
History has seen its share of mentally impaired monarchs. Some examples from the last centuries include King George III of the United Kingdom, Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, and Emperor Taishō of Japan. It seems natural (to me, at least) that that insanity is used as an argument against Monarchy, as opposed to a Republican form of government. My question is: was this argument against Monarchy used throughout history? If it was, then when and where it was used?
monarchy republic
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
|
show 3 more comments
History has seen its share of mentally impaired monarchs. Some examples from the last centuries include King George III of the United Kingdom, Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, and Emperor Taishō of Japan. It seems natural (to me, at least) that that insanity is used as an argument against Monarchy, as opposed to a Republican form of government. My question is: was this argument against Monarchy used throughout history? If it was, then when and where it was used?
monarchy republic
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
45
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
yesterday
2
One might argue that Ferdinand I abdicated because his family had a vested interest in that outcome. On the other hand, Trump's family has a vested interest in Trump staying in power. Perhaps you have instead an argument FOR monarchy.
– C Monsour
yesterday
3
@vsz: Meh, per the video's title he was just drunk there. May's struggles to cope with reality, on the other hand...
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
History has seen its share of mentally impaired monarchs. Some examples from the last centuries include King George III of the United Kingdom, Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, and Emperor Taishō of Japan. It seems natural (to me, at least) that that insanity is used as an argument against Monarchy, as opposed to a Republican form of government. My question is: was this argument against Monarchy used throughout history? If it was, then when and where it was used?
monarchy republic
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
History has seen its share of mentally impaired monarchs. Some examples from the last centuries include King George III of the United Kingdom, Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, and Emperor Taishō of Japan. It seems natural (to me, at least) that that insanity is used as an argument against Monarchy, as opposed to a Republican form of government. My question is: was this argument against Monarchy used throughout history? If it was, then when and where it was used?
monarchy republic
monarchy republic
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
edited yesterday
Mark C. Wallace♦
23.8k973113
23.8k973113
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
asked yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2421429
1,2421429
45
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
yesterday
2
One might argue that Ferdinand I abdicated because his family had a vested interest in that outcome. On the other hand, Trump's family has a vested interest in Trump staying in power. Perhaps you have instead an argument FOR monarchy.
– C Monsour
yesterday
3
@vsz: Meh, per the video's title he was just drunk there. May's struggles to cope with reality, on the other hand...
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
45
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
yesterday
2
One might argue that Ferdinand I abdicated because his family had a vested interest in that outcome. On the other hand, Trump's family has a vested interest in Trump staying in power. Perhaps you have instead an argument FOR monarchy.
– C Monsour
yesterday
3
@vsz: Meh, per the video's title he was just drunk there. May's struggles to cope with reality, on the other hand...
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
45
45
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
yesterday
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
yesterday
3
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
3
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
yesterday
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
yesterday
2
2
One might argue that Ferdinand I abdicated because his family had a vested interest in that outcome. On the other hand, Trump's family has a vested interest in Trump staying in power. Perhaps you have instead an argument FOR monarchy.
– C Monsour
yesterday
One might argue that Ferdinand I abdicated because his family had a vested interest in that outcome. On the other hand, Trump's family has a vested interest in Trump staying in power. Perhaps you have instead an argument FOR monarchy.
– C Monsour
yesterday
3
3
@vsz: Meh, per the video's title he was just drunk there. May's struggles to cope with reality, on the other hand...
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
@vsz: Meh, per the video's title he was just drunk there. May's struggles to cope with reality, on the other hand...
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Mental illness wasn't perceived as a medical condition until recent centuries. It became notional that it might be during the Enlightenment, and it only captured the popular imagination that it was with Freud.
There were still hereditary autocratic monarchies around then, but I'd stick my neck out and suggest that the main argument against them until that point and later revolved around their legitimacy and representativity rather than the off chance a monarch might be mentally unfit.
To the best of my knowledge, when past monarchs were mentally ill, some kind of regent or successor would often step in. Or they'd get deposed or killed, and replaced by someone more fit to reign. Or they'd simply be kept out of sight (Taishō of Japan), sidelined (Charles VI of France), or jailed (Joanna of Castile), while others filled the power vacuum.
The example of Ludwig II of Bavaria, for instance, is instructive. He was an eccentric with extravagant spending habits. This led conspirators to get him certified as mentally unfit to rule -- this was very controversial because they did so without even examining him. His heir was his younger brother Otto. He was considered insane and unfit to rule at the time. So his uncle and cousin ended up reigning instead, until the latter deposed him outright.
The commonality here is that a mad king is temporary state of affairs, perhaps even one that can be exploited by opportunists, rather than a problem that prompts observers to question whether there should be a monarchy to begin with.
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
1
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52020%2fon-the-insanity-of-kings-as-an-argument-against-monarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Mental illness wasn't perceived as a medical condition until recent centuries. It became notional that it might be during the Enlightenment, and it only captured the popular imagination that it was with Freud.
There were still hereditary autocratic monarchies around then, but I'd stick my neck out and suggest that the main argument against them until that point and later revolved around their legitimacy and representativity rather than the off chance a monarch might be mentally unfit.
To the best of my knowledge, when past monarchs were mentally ill, some kind of regent or successor would often step in. Or they'd get deposed or killed, and replaced by someone more fit to reign. Or they'd simply be kept out of sight (Taishō of Japan), sidelined (Charles VI of France), or jailed (Joanna of Castile), while others filled the power vacuum.
The example of Ludwig II of Bavaria, for instance, is instructive. He was an eccentric with extravagant spending habits. This led conspirators to get him certified as mentally unfit to rule -- this was very controversial because they did so without even examining him. His heir was his younger brother Otto. He was considered insane and unfit to rule at the time. So his uncle and cousin ended up reigning instead, until the latter deposed him outright.
The commonality here is that a mad king is temporary state of affairs, perhaps even one that can be exploited by opportunists, rather than a problem that prompts observers to question whether there should be a monarchy to begin with.
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
1
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Mental illness wasn't perceived as a medical condition until recent centuries. It became notional that it might be during the Enlightenment, and it only captured the popular imagination that it was with Freud.
There were still hereditary autocratic monarchies around then, but I'd stick my neck out and suggest that the main argument against them until that point and later revolved around their legitimacy and representativity rather than the off chance a monarch might be mentally unfit.
To the best of my knowledge, when past monarchs were mentally ill, some kind of regent or successor would often step in. Or they'd get deposed or killed, and replaced by someone more fit to reign. Or they'd simply be kept out of sight (Taishō of Japan), sidelined (Charles VI of France), or jailed (Joanna of Castile), while others filled the power vacuum.
The example of Ludwig II of Bavaria, for instance, is instructive. He was an eccentric with extravagant spending habits. This led conspirators to get him certified as mentally unfit to rule -- this was very controversial because they did so without even examining him. His heir was his younger brother Otto. He was considered insane and unfit to rule at the time. So his uncle and cousin ended up reigning instead, until the latter deposed him outright.
The commonality here is that a mad king is temporary state of affairs, perhaps even one that can be exploited by opportunists, rather than a problem that prompts observers to question whether there should be a monarchy to begin with.
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
1
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Mental illness wasn't perceived as a medical condition until recent centuries. It became notional that it might be during the Enlightenment, and it only captured the popular imagination that it was with Freud.
There were still hereditary autocratic monarchies around then, but I'd stick my neck out and suggest that the main argument against them until that point and later revolved around their legitimacy and representativity rather than the off chance a monarch might be mentally unfit.
To the best of my knowledge, when past monarchs were mentally ill, some kind of regent or successor would often step in. Or they'd get deposed or killed, and replaced by someone more fit to reign. Or they'd simply be kept out of sight (Taishō of Japan), sidelined (Charles VI of France), or jailed (Joanna of Castile), while others filled the power vacuum.
The example of Ludwig II of Bavaria, for instance, is instructive. He was an eccentric with extravagant spending habits. This led conspirators to get him certified as mentally unfit to rule -- this was very controversial because they did so without even examining him. His heir was his younger brother Otto. He was considered insane and unfit to rule at the time. So his uncle and cousin ended up reigning instead, until the latter deposed him outright.
The commonality here is that a mad king is temporary state of affairs, perhaps even one that can be exploited by opportunists, rather than a problem that prompts observers to question whether there should be a monarchy to begin with.
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
Mental illness wasn't perceived as a medical condition until recent centuries. It became notional that it might be during the Enlightenment, and it only captured the popular imagination that it was with Freud.
There were still hereditary autocratic monarchies around then, but I'd stick my neck out and suggest that the main argument against them until that point and later revolved around their legitimacy and representativity rather than the off chance a monarch might be mentally unfit.
To the best of my knowledge, when past monarchs were mentally ill, some kind of regent or successor would often step in. Or they'd get deposed or killed, and replaced by someone more fit to reign. Or they'd simply be kept out of sight (Taishō of Japan), sidelined (Charles VI of France), or jailed (Joanna of Castile), while others filled the power vacuum.
The example of Ludwig II of Bavaria, for instance, is instructive. He was an eccentric with extravagant spending habits. This led conspirators to get him certified as mentally unfit to rule -- this was very controversial because they did so without even examining him. His heir was his younger brother Otto. He was considered insane and unfit to rule at the time. So his uncle and cousin ended up reigning instead, until the latter deposed him outright.
The commonality here is that a mad king is temporary state of affairs, perhaps even one that can be exploited by opportunists, rather than a problem that prompts observers to question whether there should be a monarchy to begin with.
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
answered yesterday
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
13.9k24554
13.9k24554
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
1
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
1
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
12
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
Pls read some political science! Monarchy was rejected because monarchs could not make things happen: Any change deleteriously affected some nobles' ancient rights and privileges and so were adamantly and often violently opposed. Many kings, including John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, and Charles I, who lost his head over this issue, had good ideas for bringing progress to their realms, but could not implement them due to opposition of the hereditary nobility. Their reliance on the divine right of kings cost them everything.
– CElliott
yesterday
1
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
Really, it wasn't until Wilhelm Wundt that the concept of the mind or mental phenomena was discarded from psychology and all conditions hitherto regarded as mental or spiritual were relabelled as biological. And it's important to note that the biochemical imbalance notion is not a serious scientific theory, and certainly not proven scientific fact.
– Wildcard
yesterday
1
1
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
@CElliott Charles I lost to a parliamentary faction, which while not democratic by modern standards was the direct predecessor to modern democratic government. I've not heard of any of his "progress ideas"?
– pjc50
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52020%2fon-the-insanity-of-kings-as-an-argument-against-monarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
45
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
yesterday
2
One might argue that Ferdinand I abdicated because his family had a vested interest in that outcome. On the other hand, Trump's family has a vested interest in Trump staying in power. Perhaps you have instead an argument FOR monarchy.
– C Monsour
yesterday
3
@vsz: Meh, per the video's title he was just drunk there. May's struggles to cope with reality, on the other hand...
– Denis de Bernardy
yesterday