Was the insanity of kings used as an argument against monarchy?What was the source of the idea of a republic?Why does the monarchy of Belgium still exist after Leopold 2?How did the Catholic Pope manage to become more powerful than Kings in old Europe?When was the last time a reigning monarch personally participated in battle?What was the reaction to English monarchs using the title “King of France”?Was there a case where a king died while the heir to the throne was unborn?How was Napoleon able to take power from the RepublicWhy did Francisco Franco never reestablish the Spanish monarchy?Who was the first monarch?When was King John of England given the name 'Dollheart', and who first used it?
How can I get people to remember my character's gender?
Why does this derived table improve performance?
How to use dependency injection and avoid temporal coupling?
What to use instead of cling film to wrap pastry
Where can I go to avoid planes overhead?
My advisor talks about me to his colleague
Introducing Gladys, an intrepid globetrotter
What matters more when it comes to book covers? Is it ‘professional quality’ or relevancy?
How can I roleplay a follower-type character when I as a player have a leader-type personality?
What was Bran's plan to kill the Night King?
How long would it take for people to notice a mass disappearance?
Will 700 more planes a day fly because of the Heathrow expansion?
Shutter speed -vs- effective image stabilisation
Unit test when a method calls another one
What was the first sci-fi story to feature the plot "the humans were the monsters all along"?
Is there an official reason for not adding a post-credits scene?
Verb "geeitet" in an old scientific text
Should homeowners insurance cover the cost of the home?
How to increase the size of the cursor in Lubuntu 19.04?
Fender hot rod deluxe connected to speaker simulator diagram
Is there an idiom that support the idea that "inflation is bad"?
What is the solution to this metapuzzle from a university puzzling column?
Point of the Dothraki's attack in GoT S8E3?
How should I tell my manager I'm not paying for an optional after work event I'm not going to?
Was the insanity of kings used as an argument against monarchy?
What was the source of the idea of a republic?Why does the monarchy of Belgium still exist after Leopold 2?How did the Catholic Pope manage to become more powerful than Kings in old Europe?When was the last time a reigning monarch personally participated in battle?What was the reaction to English monarchs using the title “King of France”?Was there a case where a king died while the heir to the throne was unborn?How was Napoleon able to take power from the RepublicWhy did Francisco Franco never reestablish the Spanish monarchy?Who was the first monarch?When was King John of England given the name 'Dollheart', and who first used it?
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 Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
|
show 8 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 Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
48
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
Apr 9 at 12:52
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
Apr 9 at 13:08
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
Apr 9 at 15:48
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
Apr 9 at 17:10
3
Just to clarify, George III was almost certainly not mad, but suffering from porphyria, although this was not known at the time.
– TheHonRose
Apr 9 at 20:29
|
show 8 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 Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
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 Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
edited Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
edited Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
edited Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
edited Apr 17 at 22:33
curiousdannii
1859
1859
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
asked Apr 9 at 10:09
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
1,2501529
1,2501529
48
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
Apr 9 at 12:52
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
Apr 9 at 13:08
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
Apr 9 at 15:48
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
Apr 9 at 17:10
3
Just to clarify, George III was almost certainly not mad, but suffering from porphyria, although this was not known at the time.
– TheHonRose
Apr 9 at 20:29
|
show 8 more comments
48
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
Apr 9 at 12:52
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
Apr 9 at 13:08
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
Apr 9 at 15:48
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
Apr 9 at 17:10
3
Just to clarify, George III was almost certainly not mad, but suffering from porphyria, although this was not known at the time.
– TheHonRose
Apr 9 at 20:29
48
48
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
Apr 9 at 12:52
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
Apr 9 at 12:52
3
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
Apr 9 at 13:08
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
Apr 9 at 13:08
3
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
Apr 9 at 15:48
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
Apr 9 at 15:48
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
Apr 9 at 17:10
@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
Apr 9 at 17:10
3
3
Just to clarify, George III was almost certainly not mad, but suffering from porphyria, although this was not known at the time.
– TheHonRose
Apr 9 at 20:29
Just to clarify, George III was almost certainly not mad, but suffering from porphyria, although this was not known at the time.
– TheHonRose
Apr 9 at 20:29
|
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
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 Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
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
Apr 10 at 10:05
1
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
|
show 2 more comments
In much of the ancient world being ruled by a king was percieved as the natural course of things (although many societies did believe rebellion against an unjust ruler was justified) a sort of heaven does not permit two suns nor does a nation 2 rulers so to speak. Even for a society with strong democratic institutions such as Rome, the preference for(supposedly) competent people like Caesar and Augustus over supposedly corrupt senators such as Cassius outweighed strict aherence to every check and balance of the system.
@Russell McMachon the US political system is not really broken however inept the current administration may be, the democratic system is alive an well.
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
add a 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%2fwas-the-insanity-of-kings-used-as-an-argument-against-monarchy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
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 Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
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
Apr 10 at 10:05
1
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
|
show 2 more comments
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 Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
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
Apr 10 at 10:05
1
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
|
show 2 more comments
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 Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
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 Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
answered Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
answered Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
answered Apr 9 at 11:51
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k24958
15.2k24958
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
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
Apr 10 at 10:05
1
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
|
show 2 more comments
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
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
Apr 10 at 10:05
1
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
12
12
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
beat me too it. as long as regents exist the argument is a non-starter
– Orangesandlemons
Apr 9 at 12:06
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
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
Apr 10 at 1:18
1
1
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
@CElliott: I fail to see how what you describe doesn't fall under legitimacy and representativity.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 10 at 2:26
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
Apr 10 at 10:05
@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
Apr 10 at 10:05
1
1
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
Perhaps "mental illness" wasn't thought of as a medical condition, but madness was certainly recognized. For instance Roman Emperors Nero and Caligula.
– jamesqf
Apr 10 at 17:28
|
show 2 more comments
In much of the ancient world being ruled by a king was percieved as the natural course of things (although many societies did believe rebellion against an unjust ruler was justified) a sort of heaven does not permit two suns nor does a nation 2 rulers so to speak. Even for a society with strong democratic institutions such as Rome, the preference for(supposedly) competent people like Caesar and Augustus over supposedly corrupt senators such as Cassius outweighed strict aherence to every check and balance of the system.
@Russell McMachon the US political system is not really broken however inept the current administration may be, the democratic system is alive an well.
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
add a comment |
In much of the ancient world being ruled by a king was percieved as the natural course of things (although many societies did believe rebellion against an unjust ruler was justified) a sort of heaven does not permit two suns nor does a nation 2 rulers so to speak. Even for a society with strong democratic institutions such as Rome, the preference for(supposedly) competent people like Caesar and Augustus over supposedly corrupt senators such as Cassius outweighed strict aherence to every check and balance of the system.
@Russell McMachon the US political system is not really broken however inept the current administration may be, the democratic system is alive an well.
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
add a comment |
In much of the ancient world being ruled by a king was percieved as the natural course of things (although many societies did believe rebellion against an unjust ruler was justified) a sort of heaven does not permit two suns nor does a nation 2 rulers so to speak. Even for a society with strong democratic institutions such as Rome, the preference for(supposedly) competent people like Caesar and Augustus over supposedly corrupt senators such as Cassius outweighed strict aherence to every check and balance of the system.
@Russell McMachon the US political system is not really broken however inept the current administration may be, the democratic system is alive an well.
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
In much of the ancient world being ruled by a king was percieved as the natural course of things (although many societies did believe rebellion against an unjust ruler was justified) a sort of heaven does not permit two suns nor does a nation 2 rulers so to speak. Even for a society with strong democratic institutions such as Rome, the preference for(supposedly) competent people like Caesar and Augustus over supposedly corrupt senators such as Cassius outweighed strict aherence to every check and balance of the system.
@Russell McMachon the US political system is not really broken however inept the current administration may be, the democratic system is alive an well.
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
answered Apr 18 at 19:58
Hao SunHao Sun
39138
39138
add a comment |
add a 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%2fwas-the-insanity-of-kings-used-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
48
US politics suggests that this is a non argument :-) & :-(
– Russell McMahon
Apr 9 at 12:52
3
@RussellMcMahon :-D
– José Carlos Santos
Apr 9 at 13:08
3
@RussellMcMahon : EU politics also show similar trends...
– vsz
Apr 9 at 15:48
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
Apr 9 at 17:10
3
Just to clarify, George III was almost certainly not mad, but suffering from porphyria, although this was not known at the time.
– TheHonRose
Apr 9 at 20:29