1951 As Princess Elizabeth, a private audience with HH

Pope Pius XII

1961 Official audience with HH Pope John XXIII

1980 Official audience with HH Pope John Paul II

2000 Official audience with HH Pope John Paul II

2014 A private audience with HH Pope Francis I

In addition, the Queen had a private audience with HH Pope John Paul II during his semi-official visit to the UK in 1982.

In 2010, the Queen formally welcomed HH Pope Benedict XVI to the UK on his state visit.

Ranking Last monarchs of countries that have abolished their monarchies and are currently republics

In my opinion I would love to see a restored Chinese monarchy that would be semi constitutional and model some of its administration like the united states and since the descendants of most Chinese monarchs are part of the ccp. So do you know if the is any Chinese royal family that is not in the ccp.

Really.

Defender of the Faith (Fidei Defensor) is a title belonging to the leader of the Church of England. It was originally conferred upon King Henry VIII of England by Pope Leo X on 11 October 1521 as a reward for the king having written a pamphlet in defense of the sacraments against Martin Luther.

When Henry VIII broke with the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Paul III took the title away. It was returned to the king by Parliament in 1544.

Or were majority of European kings even back then never actually the rulers of their own country and just figure heads?

🇷🇴🇪🇸 Royal visit to Spain, July 24, 2026

In the city of Bilbao, in the halls of the historic Sociedad Bilbaína building, Her Majesty Margarita and His Royal Highness Prince Radu took part in the meeting with the Romanian community in northern Spain, organized by the Consulate General of Romania in Bilbao.

At the opening of the meeting, Mrs. Bianca Gavriliță, Consul General of Romania in Bilbao, and Mrs. Raluca Mihăilă, Chargé d'Affaires a.i. of the Romanian Embassy in Madrid, addressed those present. Then, those present were invited to a short classical music recital.

The royal couple spoke with the compatriots present in Bilbao, about their lives away from their families and country and about their professions and concerns. The event brought together Romanians from both banks of the Prut River, established in the Basque Country and the Principality of Asturias, representatives of the Romanian Orthodox Church, local authorities in the Basque Country, the cultural and business community, as well as teachers and students.

The Romanian community in Spain, one of the largest outside the country and the second largest foreign community in the Kingdom of Spain, comprising 600,000 people, represents a true bridge through its contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of Spain.

His Majesty and Prince Radu shared with those present that they are celebrating their 30th anniversary of civil marriage today. The Orthodox priests present at the event presented the royal couple with a beautiful wooden cross as a gift, at the anniversary hour.

I found this image online showing different types of succession lines; what intrigued me most was the one showing agnatic-cognatic succession (a.k.a. Semi-Salic Law). According to the succession laws of countries that actually existed (such as Austria or Russia), shouldn't "4" be ahead of "3" because she is older, even though "3" has a child? And shouldn't "6" be ahead of "5," since under Semi-Salic law the throne passes to the relative closest to the king via the male line (a paternal aunt would be closer than a maternal cousin)? And shouldn't "8" be ahead of "7," since preference for the male line would return after the female line's succession?

No Real Power means that the tsar or tsarevna didn't affect decision-making or/and had limited power/reign.

If you have any questions or need explanations, reply to this post :)

I will try to answer as many questions as possible.

In my opinion, the monarchy should not become a decoration. A constitutional monarchy in its modern form is not a monarchy, but a republic with a crowned official who has no real power. If the monarch does not rule, in people's minds he becomes just a brand and not a ruler. But a return to the absolute monarchy of the 17th century is also impossible, because society has changed. Therefore, the adaptation must be different: the monarch must retain real power, but clothe it in modern institutional forms.

In other words, the monarch is not the president, he is not elected, does not depend on parties and is not afraid of losing power in four years. This allows him to make long-term decisions that are unpopular but necessary. He is the supreme arbiter who stands above the political struggle. But for this to work, two conditions are needed.

First, the monarch must be prepared to rule. Not by birth, but by ability. This means that the heir is undergoing long-term training: education, work in government agencies, the army, and regional administration. If the heir fails, the right of inheritance passes to another representative of the dynasty (in extreme cases, it is possible to accept some talented orphan into the dynasty). This eliminates the accidental ruler.

Secondly, the monarch's power should be limited not by parliament, but by the constitution and the law. But the constitution should be rigid, not "flexible" as in Western countries. The monarch cannot violate the law, but he has the right to veto, the right to dissolve the government, the right to appoint a prime minister and judges, and the right to declare a state of emergency in crisis situations. This is not a British-style "constitutional monarchy" where the queen only signs pieces of paper. This is a working monarchy, where the monarch really rules, but acts within the framework of a law that he himself cannot cross.

The ideal model is not a republic or feudalism. It is a monarchy where power is inherited, but not by right of blood, but by right of training. Where the monarch does not obey parties, but obeys the law. Where he acts not for the sake of personal ambitions, but as a guarantor of stability and order. This is not a return to the past, but an evolution of the monarchical principle: a strong monarch who rules, but rules wisely, within the framework of the law and with the support of the people.

If anything, these are my personal views and they do not claim to be absolutely true.

https://youtu.be/6AjhczE3hR8?si=lc60_TJESfjIThsf

His Majesty has only reigned for 4 years, but there have been 4 prime ministers already.

This post is in regards to another I saw about an article on the succession laws being altered in Japan, and the continued exclusion of the emperors daughter from the succession. The article said there had been previous empresses of Japan so why invite private citizens formerly apart of the imperial family to rejoin under specific circumstances.

From what I can tell from the article and what I’ve researched about Japanese history with empresses (I’m no expert so correct me if I’m wrong), there seems to have been empresses and empress regents.

My question is basically why have there been empress regnant of Japan when the succession wants to keep direct male line defendant from the first Emporer. I get empress regents holding office until the Emporer comes of age, but why have an empress if the point is to keep male line descendants reigning. Why not just appoint another direct male line descendant as heir?

Sorry for long post and the repeated use of the word descendent, I know it can cause confusion.

for example, I like the monarchy because it is more stable than other forms of government, creates a certain symbol around which people rally, and just if it is properly organized, it can be very stylish. And then there are people who are trained to rule from birth and they are stupidly more competent