On the insanity of kings as an argument against MonarchyWhy does the monarchy of Belgium still exist after Leopold 2?Does (or did) any monarchy have a limited length of tenure?Why have Polish kings been such a “mixed bag?”Language of early French (West-Frankish) kingsWhy has monarchy appeared just about everywhere?What was the reaction to English monarchs using the title “King of France”?Why did Spanish kings repeatedly split their kingdoms between their children upon death?Why did Francisco Franco never reestablish the Spanish monarchy?Which Kings of France visited England?Were any Kings/Queens who were monarchs as children good rulers?

What is the command to reset a Windows installation without deleting any files

Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?

Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?

If a centaur druid Wild Shapes into a Giant Elk, do their Charge features stack?

How to manage monthly salary

Solve this specific large sparse system of linear equations

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

What is this 4-propeller plane?

Supply current of negative rail

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

Is ipsum/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?

What are my rights when I have a Sparpreis ticket but can't board an overcrowded train?

Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size

Is it wise to focus on putting odd beats on left when playing double bass drums?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

What is the steepest angle that a canal can be traversable without locks?

Pristine Bit Checking

Why can Shazam fly?

What tool would a roman-age civilisation use to reduce/breakup silver and other metals?

How are circuits which use complex ICs normally simulated?

Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?

Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?

Symbol above others



On the insanity of kings as an argument against Monarchy


Why does the monarchy of Belgium still exist after Leopold 2?Does (or did) any monarchy have a limited length of tenure?Why have Polish kings been such a “mixed bag?”Language of early French (West-Frankish) kingsWhy has monarchy appeared just about everywhere?What was the reaction to English monarchs using the title “King of France”?Why did Spanish kings repeatedly split their kingdoms between their children upon death?Why did Francisco Franco never reestablish the Spanish monarchy?Which Kings of France visited England?Were any Kings/Queens who were monarchs as children good rulers?













3















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(

    – Russell McMahon
    11 mins ago















3















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(

    – Russell McMahon
    11 mins ago













3












3








3








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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







José Carlos Santos

















asked 2 hours ago









José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

1,1901327




1,1901327







  • 1





    US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(

    – Russell McMahon
    11 mins ago












  • 1





    US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(

    – Russell McMahon
    11 mins ago







1




1





US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(

– Russell McMahon
11 mins ago





US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(

– Russell McMahon
11 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6














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.






share|improve this answer























  • beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

    – Orangesandlemons
    56 mins ago











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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















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









6














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.






share|improve this answer























  • beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

    – Orangesandlemons
    56 mins ago















6














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.






share|improve this answer























  • beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

    – Orangesandlemons
    56 mins ago













6












6








6







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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 1 hour ago









Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

13.6k24353




13.6k24353












  • beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

    – Orangesandlemons
    56 mins ago

















  • beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

    – Orangesandlemons
    56 mins ago
















beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

– Orangesandlemons
56 mins ago





beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter

– Orangesandlemons
56 mins ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

acmart: Multiple authors: all with same affiliation, one author an additional affiliationHow to Write Names of Multiple Authors with Shared Affiliation in ACM 2017 Template?Multiple authors with different primary affiliation, but same additional affiliationSame affiliation for all authors without extra packagesIOS-Book-Article.cls: one author with multiple affiliationacmart: Shared Author AffiliationMultiple authors with different primary affiliation, but same additional affiliationAuthor affiliation with only 1 authorAdding Multiple Authors with Different Affiliation in LaTeX ArticleLaTeX: Multiple authors stays on same lineHow to Label Multiple Authors with Same DescriptionHow to make two authors use the same affiliationTwo authors with same affiliation on finished front page

How to write “ä” and other umlauts and accented letters in bibliography?Accents in BibTeXSorting references with special characters alphabeticallyUse ae ligature in bibliographyEastern European nameInverted circumflex in BibTexBibTex, non-ascii initials and nameptr fproblems with accent in LatexHow to add a Ø to my bibliography from Jabref?References without accentsTroubles when trying to cite St“omer-Verlet in ”title" field of a bib entryComprehensive list of accented charactersHow to type the letter “i” with two dots (diaeresis) in math mode?Problem with glossary text and accented lettersSpecial character in bibliographyAccented letters, Unicode and LaTeX accentsHow to stop natbib from modifying bibliography styleCitation of a paper with non-standard characters by BibtexWrite accented characters to file using writeHow to group the bibliography alphabetically, if some surnames start with “accented” characters?How can I automatically capitalize significant words in my bibliography?

Problem using RevTeX4-1 with “! Undefined control sequence. @bibitemShut”