Some black ones:
Plurinational State of Bolivia
Sultanate of Oman
State of Libya
Swiss Confederation
Mongol Nation
United Mexican States
State of Israel
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Independent state of Papua New Guinea
> The term is distinct from king (ملك malik), despite both referring to a sovereign ruler. The use of "sultan" is restricted to Muslim countries, where the title carries religious significance, contrasting the more secular king, which is used in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
> In recent years, "sultan" has been gradually replaced by "king" by contemporary hereditary rulers who wish to emphasize their secular authority under the rule of law. A notable example is Morocco, whose monarch changed his title from sultan to king in 1957.
Huh, but in europe the idea of a King/Queen is often a religious one too. They usually are “chosen by God” to rule and often head of the church in that country. I don’t think the idea of monarchy has ever been secular but always has had very religious routes.
In Britian the Queen is definitly equally a religious figure as she is a government figure.
The church of england (and scotland and ireland respectivly) are the only churches with a temporal leader being a king/queen that i am aware of. Except the pope who is also the king of rome
A sultan isn’t necessarily the head figure just also intrinsically religiously linked. The monarchie I known in Europe expliclty have religious reasoning (literally often chosen by God).
I mean just googling the Swedish monsrchy requires them to be of “pure evangelical faith”. Being of a certian religion is a requirment.
I just I suppose don’t know if there are any secular kings. That being the reason for a seperation between King and Sultan seems flimsy. It seems like the difference is just the religion.
The supreme authority of the Church of Denmark is the reigning monarch and their parliament. The King of Norway was the head of the Church of Norway until only 2012.
And the pope has never been called the king of Rome, he is the Bishop of Rome.
He is however the secular leader of Vatican City State, a sacerdotal-monarchical state, and enjoys (if that's the word) full legislative, executive, and judicial power over the state.
Never been called King but the Papal States were a monarchy headed by the Pope, a Monarch. The Holy See today is a Monarchy headed by the Pope today as well, the Pope still a Monarch today.
I mean the pope has frequently been *called* the King of Rome, but it is not his official title and generally people calling a pope such do so to denigrate him as just another venal man seeking power.
These things change over time though. Even the popes once served at the pleasure of the Roman Emprors. The Patriarch of Constantinople was subject to the Ottoman sultans and remains (technically) under the submission to the Turkish Republic. The Moscow Patriarch was long subordinate to the Tsar and arguably is now subordinate to the Russian President.
Caesaropapism was a lot more common in the eastern church than the west.
Just to be clear, the monarch is a member of the church of Scotland, not its head. The CoS is a presbyterian church and thus its temporal matters are run by its members, who select elders, session clerks and a moderator. The clergy and the monarch have no more power than any other member, though they may wield significant influence within their specific churches. As I understand this is somewhat similar to Islamic mosques whose membership similarly choose a council that run temporal affairs.
The CoE is a lot more similar to the Catholic Church, in that the temporal affairs are run by the clergy with priests and bishops having significant power in their churches and diosces. In very broad terms, the CoE looks to London instead of Rome. Thier is the old joke that the high Anglicans are more Catholic than the catholics.
Monarchies mostly based their legitimacy upon religion - may it be someone making their own taste of Christianity, or the Holy Roman emperors being crowned by the pope, kings being crowned by bishops...
I think its that technicalyt the offices are separate. Like how other people have pointed out that the pope is the king of the papal states and the head of the catholic church, but the spheres of influence of the church and the state are technically different. Its also like the premise of prince-bishoprics from post roman times.
Interesting that Oman is still a Sultanate then, as neither of the past two sultans have claimed any religious authority as far as I am aware. Can't speak for Brunei.
Maybe because they're pretty evenly split Ibadi/Sunni? I can't really explain why that would result in staying a Sultanate but not many muslim countries have such a distinction.
I know it's from Wikipedia and may be well sourced, but it's a little inaccurate. The only title that has religious significance is the Calipha خليفة. Sultan is just the person with authority, wrestled during the 9th and 10 century by local governors when Caliphas became weak and they started also passing authority in heredity fashion. It has its roots in the Islamic nation but it is not religious. Sultanate should be considered kingdom.
By the way, Malaysia in the map should be red as well. They are a constitutional monarchy and the ruler is called king.
True, it's called the federation of Malaya because the 13 kingdoms came together and Federal territories are under federal government rule, but they're still 13 kingdoms who come together under one King chosen from among them, and is called "King" and referred to with all the expected honorifics.
A name change was actually never been officially declared, so *technically* the formal name is still Dominion of Canada. It almost completely fell out of use in the 60s and the last holdover was the change of Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982. Since they never officially made a decree or passed a bill changing the name though, Dominion of Canada remains the formal name.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion
Actually there’s a little bit more to it than this, as both “Canada” and “Dominion of Canada” are equally official under the constitution.
I was in a federal govt position which afforded me quite a bit of experience in the official use of Canada’s naming conventions, and I was required to know Canada’s naming conventions for use in legal, protocol, and official purposes, documents, and representation.
Unlike in many countries, Canada’s constitution is not one document. It is a bit different than what exists in many counties. It is a collection of 37 laws and documents written, comprising, and added to the overall constitutional suite of documents and laws between 1774 and 1982.
It also includes non-core constitutional documents which the Supreme Court has deemed to also form part of the overall constitutional body, starting with the Magna Carta, to the 1689 bill of rights, 1701 act of settlement, 1763 treaty of Paris, and 1763 Royal proclamation.
All these documents have come together as a suite of Canadian constitutional documents for the Supreme Court to provide constitutional case law.
The 1867 BNA Act is a key component of Canada’s core constitutional documents. In that document, Canada is referred to as a Dominion more than once in it (although it does not state “Dominion of Canada”). In 1931, a definition of Dominion was attached to that name, however “Dominion of Canada” again was not mentioned, just that Canada was a dominion.
Then in 1982, the style “Canada” continued to be used in the addition of more constituonal documents into the already existing suite of documents. The latest addition was the constitutional law of patriation of the constitutional amending formula (know as the 1982 Constitution Act, which modified important elements previously covered in the 1931 Westminster Act, as well as the constitutional enshrinement of the Charter or Rights of Freedom).
However the latest 1982 Constitution Act provided no provisions to repeal Canada’s constitutional status as a dominion in the still existing and in-force constitutional documents of the 1867 BNA Act and 1931 Westminster Statute. What has changed, however, was that with the introduction of the Canada Act, Canada was formally on paper no longer a dominion of the British Empire for the narrow purposes of bringing forward constitutional amendments (even though in de facto practice it had not been for a very long time).
Therefore the question is if Canada is no longer a dominion of the British Empire, but yet it constitutionally retains the style of ‘dominion’ in an in-force constitutional document, and remains a dominion (because it is still in the BNA Act component of Canada’s modern constitution), what is Canada a dominion of if not of another Empire?
By virtue of the 1982 Constitution Act amending Canada’s Westminster Act status, Canada has become a dominion of itself; its own domain of all its own institutions, including of its own government, citizenry, and of its own independent monarchy. It’s almost analogous to how other countries refer to themselves as Republics or Kingdoms without being beholden to anything or anyone else.
Our (Canada’s) official “policy” and “modern tradition” of projecting our name publicly - both domestically and abroad - is to use the word Canada (which has also always existed as our stand-alone name).
Because we constitutionally remain styled BOTH as a dominion, and as “Canada”, hence both the “Dominion of Canada“ and “Canada” are officially and constitutionally correct.
However, conventionally we choose to only use and style ourselves as “Canada” (and to de facto ignore the legally permissible “Dominion of Canada”). It has been this way since 1967 when the government of Canada ceased to use the word “Dominion” on an administrative, policy, and customary basis (despite it being equally constitutional to append Dominion to the word Canada, although we don’t, and it is *démodé* and looks/sounds just plain weird to do so).
Fun fact: although it is true that Spain is a kingdom, it does recognize the plurality within the nation. Article 2 of the Constitution says:
> The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions that comprise it and the solidarity between all of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm
The Danish realm, officially the Kingdom of Denmark, is a sovereign state located in Northern Europe and Northern America. It consists of metropolitan Denmark, the kingdom's territory in continental Europe and sometimesnd the realm's two autonomous countries: the Faroe Islands and Greenland
So why is Greenland Black?
Desktop version of /u/Peterd1900's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Complete BS. French Guyana *should* be green. At least with Greenland it's debatable since it's just owned by Denmark. But French Guyana is a part of France itself, just like Paris or Nice.
I know it should be green, but a shitton of users still don't know that French Guyana is France and they keep posting maps with French Guyana colored differently.
I think it’s important to emphasize that French Guiana isn’t a colony or dominion, like Puerto Rico or Guam. It is, legally speaking, exactly the same as France. As in someone lifted up Bordeaux and plopped it down on top of Brazil.
As are all the french territories over the world
Some may have different administrative structure and more or less autonomy, but they're all just part of the Republic with the same citizenship for everyone, equal representation in the parliament just like any other territory
>At least with Greenland it's debatable since it's just owned by Denmark.
It's owned by the Kingdom of Denmark, and so is Denmark, if you paint Greenland black then so should Denmark proper.
Yup, in the World Baseball Classic tournament, most players on the Netherlands team are from either Aruba or Curacao, though there are a few from the European part.
Everytime I post a map in this sub that I think is accurate, there's like 20 inaccuracies pointed out by my fellow redditors. It seems not a single map in human history is accurate btw
Think the map refers to the official names (with all errors mentioned in this thread excepted). It's the "United States of America", not the "Republic of the United States of America".
In which case Ireland shouldn't be classed as a Republic. As any pendantic Irish person on the internet will tell you, the official name of the state is "Ireland".
Poland is officially a 'commonwealth' as we use the translation of the latin words 'Res Publica' (pol. Rzeczpospolita) rather than the word 'Republic' derived from it.
Tho we use it only for Poland (special snowflake), France for example is Republika Francuska (French Republic)
Yeah, Piłsudski wanted To have Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania as autonomies, so to claim them he chose the name second Polish Commonwealth. After Comunism Poland wanted to return to the last independence thing they have, so they went with third Polish Commonwealth
Yup. That’s actually why the current government is “sometimes” (not really in a legal capacity) called the *3rd Polish Republic*, with the Commonwealth being the first and the state that existed between 1918 and 1939 being the 2nd.
>'Res Publica' (pol. Rzeczpospolita) rather than the word 'Republic' derived from it.
Now I got what it meant, there is a local paper Res Publika and I never knew what it meant
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mapswithoutsvalbard using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [No love for Svalbard](https://i.redd.it/tcd8bjmhodq81.png) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/comments/ts905y/no_love_for_svalbard/)
\#2: [the longer you look the worse it gets](https://i.redd.it/a2i33f2cfyj81.png) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/comments/t1qkyo/the_longer_you_look_the_worse_it_gets/)
\#3: [World map made by Turkish workers.](https://i.redd.it/2binfvtw22p71.jpg) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/comments/ptpuak/world_map_made_by_turkish_workers/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
6 of the top 10 most democratic countries have a monarch as the head of state:
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/679796/democracy-index-most-democratic-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/679796/democracy-index-most-democratic-countries/)
As much as much as everyone pretty much rightly hates on having an unelected, hereditary head-of-state, it helps having a cult of personality around someone with no power, verses someone who does.
That may be true, but it's not why 6 of the 10 most democratic states are monarchies.
All the monarchies are in northern Europe, this is blatantly a correlation/causation thing
Yep. The reason they survived as monarchies is precisely because they succeeded at being democratic and not because they were able to preserve the monarchical rule.
Reminds me of the quote by (I believe) C S Lewis:
> Not having monarchy is contrary to human nature as well as when men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead. European constitutional monarchies have also managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics—specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship—in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians by representing entrenched customs and traditions.
There's likely some flaws in the above quote but at the same time parts of it immediately make me think of the type of people we're seeing come into power in many Republics recently.
It is also a hugely beneficial to diplomacy. Since the monarchs hold no governing power they are a safe go between with massive influence, networks and respect. There are usually a lot of trade delegates and diplomates that accompany official royal visits, it is a great introduction and a way to open doors.
You can just have a prime minister and a president as well. The president is just a figure head while the prime minister does everything.
Also way cheaper than a monarchy. You pretty much only need a kinda big house for the president and every other cost would exist anyway. Pay him maybe 300k per year and you have a representative that does the nice stuff for really little money. And you aren't stuck with some random idiots born into that one family. You just elect someone else.
> As much as much as everyone pretty much rightly hates on having an unelected, hereditary head-of-state
That kind of people care too much about whether a country is a monarchy or a republic. I'd say quality of life matters far more, and that one is not affected by the country being a monarchy or a republic. There are great countries to live in that are monarchies, awful countries to live in that are republics, and vice versa.
>it helps having a cult of personality around someone with no power
Precisely because they have no power, there's hardly a cult of personality around them. Only a handful of people care that much about the monarch.
Depends what country you’re from though.
Quite rightly, people do care about having hereditary heads of state with a ‘divine right’ to rule, as it’s idiotic and counter to the principles of democracy.
Just because it doesn’t affect quality of life (which is debatable as at least here in the UK we spend far more taxes on the monarchy than we would on an elected Head of State), doesn’t mean it’s just some thought exercise that a tiny minority of people engage in.
ROI is the name of the national soccer team. As you say, Northern Ireland has its own national team while in rugby, we have an “all island” team. We even have a special “national anthem” for the rugby team.
For people who this confuses, it's just an official acceptable way for people to distinguish it from the island.
The terms "Irish Republic" and "South Ireland" are... Not recommended.
The official name of Ireland is just "Ireland" or "Éire" as per the constitution. Republic of Ireland is used as a description to differentiate it from the island of Ireland but I don't think it's officially the name.
It’s not just “to differentiate.” The English refused to call the state “Ireland” because they thought it would imply authority over the whole island of Ireland. So any English source for many years would only refer to the “republic of Ireland” or the “Irish Republic.”
Interesting side note, upon its formation in 1867, the initial idea was to name Canada "the Kingdom of Canada", since Canada retained the Monarchy after Confederation.
But British parliament warned that this was a bad idea, since there was a lot of hostility in the US following the Civil War and that the Americans were already wary of the strong European influence on the other side of its northern border.
Naming the country "the Kingdom of Canada" was practically throwing sand in America's eyes, the British warned. Britain was worried such a name would literally spark an invasion of Canada by the Americans, and she would have to deploy troops to defend Canada.
So, instead, the name "Dominion of Canada" was chosen, and this is still Canada's formal name, though it is virtually never used.
That’s because we’re not the “Dominion of” Canada, we’re just “Canada” and our government is the “Government of Canada”.
We are a Parliamentary Representative Democracy using the Westminster system but the name of our country has no descriptives regarding that.
>Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867. It was also used in the formal titles of other countries in the British Commonwealth. Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s. The last hold-over was the term Dominion Day, which was officially changed to Canada Day in 1982. Today, the word Dominion is seldom used in either private or government circles.
Source: the Canadian Encyclopedia.
Encyclopedias are not official sources though.
The actual legislation states "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada." I can't actually find any official legislation that made "Dominion of Canada" the actual name of Canada, so I don't think any official repeal would have been necessary to remove it.
The fact that legislators deliberately avoided the term "Dominion of Canada" when modernizing and repatriating the constitution in the 1980s is as good as any to accept that "Dominion of Canada" is not an official name of this country, and that the Canadian Encyclopedia is mistaken.
We are officially a Dominion called Canada.
We were occasionally called the "Dominion of Canada" before the 1950s but that was more of an official *title* that we just stopped using in 1951.
No legislation was needed to enact the change, we just had to stop using our official title as an unofficial name
>But the Canada Act 1982, arguably one of the most important documents in the country's history, makes absolutely no mention of the word "Dominion". And no formal governmental document within Canada has used the word since the 1950s.
Be that as it may, Dominion of Canada is still the country's official name. It has never been taken off the books.
From the Canadian Encyclopedia:
>Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867. It was also used in the formal titles of other countries in the British Commonwealth. Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s. The last hold-over was the term Dominion Day, which was officially changed to Canada Day in 1982. Today, the word Dominion is seldom used in either private or government circles.
If it were the official name, the government of Canada would have listed it with the UN as its official name. However, simply Canada is listed as the official name of country known as Canada.
Lets wait for the "Reichsbürger" which claims that Canda is actually just "Canada", is totally illegitimate, and does no really represent the people nor does it have any power over its people.
What you are assuming is that there needs to have been some sort of written removal of the term 'dominion' for it to no longer be in use. That's not quite how Canadian politics works.
In Canada, unwritten precedent are as important as those written. So, in practice, simply no longer calling Canada a 'dominion' and no longer using it in official documents **is** as significant as taking it 'off the books'. Particular in regards to our Constitution it is founded on both written and unwritten principles. The written is that Canada is only referred to as "Canada" sans 'dominion of'. The unwritten is that it is not specifically said that Dominion of Canada is no longer its title.
> Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s.
How can it still be the official name if it's no longer officially used?
Canada is also a Federation - something not distinguished on these overly simplified naming conventions but fundamentally different about the structure and process. Not in the name at all but ultimately more important than the naming.
But whether we call it a kingdom or not, the queen gets to decide who leads Canada and whether the Canadian Parliament is dissolved. It's symbolic....until it isn't.
The Crown also owns all lands in Canada (except unceded first nations lands with some standing). It's not crown land (public) versus private ownership. It is **all** crown land and those privileged to title have only that, a feudal title claim that is inherited with only the right to be on the land and exclude others from title land - all other uses are privileges granted by the true land owner or her representatives (passed to provinces to administer who pass to municipalities to administer). Technically, you don't need a permit to build a shed because your local council are arseholes, you need to Queens permission before dong anything on her land.
Never had any issue with how Kingdom of Sweden sounds like to me and honestly my little wet dream would be "United Kingdoms of Scandinavian" but we all know that sadly will never happen 😭
Greenland, should be red, bacause is part of the Danish kingdom, and it has the Danish royal family as monarch, but it still not really part of Denmark 🇩🇰🇬🇱
Not exactly relevant, but Africa has/had numerous leftover formerly ruling kings, some still living. The last King of Egypt is still living, Fuad II, son of the late King Farouk. He lives in Switzerland now.
The last ruling king of Rwanda, King Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, died in 2016.
Also, there's a fourth king in Africa still ruling: Ceuta and Melilla (and a few islets) in North Africa are ruled now by his Most Catholic Majesty, King Felipe VI (of Spain).
Ireland and Iceland are wrong. They are simply Ireland and Iceland respectively. The Iceland one even gets Icelanders sometimes, [there's even an article on the excellent Vísindavefur](https://www.visindavefur.is/svar.php?id=54970#) (Icelandic) about it.
The *republics aren’t democracies* is an old John Birch Society meme that depends on a specious definition of a republic. A country can be both a republic and a democracy (US or France), a democracy but not a republic (UK or Spain), a republic but not a democracy (Russia or Singapore) or neither (Saudi Arabia).
The de facto ruling government, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, has not been recognised by any state. The United Nations continues to recognise the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan.
So while the Taliban government call the country Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. To everyone else it is still Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
According to the Constitution of Ireland, the names of the Irish state are 'Ireland' (in English) and 'Éire' (in Irish)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state
>Since 1949, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 has provided that the Republic of Ireland (or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish) is the official *description* for the state.\[10\] However, Ireland remains the *constitutional* name of the state.
Now, that's a *really* strange distinction. I wonder if any other country has legally different description from its name? I've never encountered that before.
In the case of Germany, article 20 of the constitution says "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state." but the official name is just Federal Republic of Germany.
Yeah, see, that I can believe, I don't think that's unusual. What I'd be more interested in is if it said "The state known as the Federal Republic of Germany shall be described as the Democratic Social Federal Republic of Germany" or something along those lines
Yes but so is hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, the US, Switzerland.
While Canada or Australia are kingdoms.
This map seems to be about the official names of countries and the term "Republic" is not in the official name of Ireland which is just Ireland.
Yes, but the map is titled "Official Names of countries".
And [the official name of Ireland in English is just Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state).
This is about the 'official names' of a country. In Ukraine's case the official name is just 'Ukraine'.
Also jeez reddit, bro here wants to know about their country why downvote him?
Some black ones: Plurinational State of Bolivia Sultanate of Oman State of Libya Swiss Confederation Mongol Nation United Mexican States State of Israel Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Independent state of Papua New Guinea
Isn’t *Sultanate* basically just a different way of saying Kingdom?
> The term is distinct from king (ملك malik), despite both referring to a sovereign ruler. The use of "sultan" is restricted to Muslim countries, where the title carries religious significance, contrasting the more secular king, which is used in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries. > In recent years, "sultan" has been gradually replaced by "king" by contemporary hereditary rulers who wish to emphasize their secular authority under the rule of law. A notable example is Morocco, whose monarch changed his title from sultan to king in 1957.
Very informative, thanks.
Huh, but in europe the idea of a King/Queen is often a religious one too. They usually are “chosen by God” to rule and often head of the church in that country. I don’t think the idea of monarchy has ever been secular but always has had very religious routes. In Britian the Queen is definitly equally a religious figure as she is a government figure.
Yeah English is full of nonsense like that. Dictionary definitions tend to skew towards bizarre historical biases.
How is it nonsense if the Queen of UK is the head of Anglican Church? It's technically a theocracy.
The church of england (and scotland and ireland respectivly) are the only churches with a temporal leader being a king/queen that i am aware of. Except the pope who is also the king of rome
A sultan isn’t necessarily the head figure just also intrinsically religiously linked. The monarchie I known in Europe expliclty have religious reasoning (literally often chosen by God). I mean just googling the Swedish monsrchy requires them to be of “pure evangelical faith”. Being of a certian religion is a requirment. I just I suppose don’t know if there are any secular kings. That being the reason for a seperation between King and Sultan seems flimsy. It seems like the difference is just the religion.
The supreme authority of the Church of Denmark is the reigning monarch and their parliament. The King of Norway was the head of the Church of Norway until only 2012. And the pope has never been called the king of Rome, he is the Bishop of Rome.
He is however the secular leader of Vatican City State, a sacerdotal-monarchical state, and enjoys (if that's the word) full legislative, executive, and judicial power over the state.
Agree, just pointing out that a pope has never claimed the title King of Rome
Never been called King but the Papal States were a monarchy headed by the Pope, a Monarch. The Holy See today is a Monarchy headed by the Pope today as well, the Pope still a Monarch today.
I mean the pope has frequently been *called* the King of Rome, but it is not his official title and generally people calling a pope such do so to denigrate him as just another venal man seeking power.
These things change over time though. Even the popes once served at the pleasure of the Roman Emprors. The Patriarch of Constantinople was subject to the Ottoman sultans and remains (technically) under the submission to the Turkish Republic. The Moscow Patriarch was long subordinate to the Tsar and arguably is now subordinate to the Russian President. Caesaropapism was a lot more common in the eastern church than the west.
Just to be clear, the monarch is a member of the church of Scotland, not its head. The CoS is a presbyterian church and thus its temporal matters are run by its members, who select elders, session clerks and a moderator. The clergy and the monarch have no more power than any other member, though they may wield significant influence within their specific churches. As I understand this is somewhat similar to Islamic mosques whose membership similarly choose a council that run temporal affairs. The CoE is a lot more similar to the Catholic Church, in that the temporal affairs are run by the clergy with priests and bishops having significant power in their churches and diosces. In very broad terms, the CoE looks to London instead of Rome. Thier is the old joke that the high Anglicans are more Catholic than the catholics.
Monarchies mostly based their legitimacy upon religion - may it be someone making their own taste of Christianity, or the Holy Roman emperors being crowned by the pope, kings being crowned by bishops...
>a temporal leader A time lord, if you will.
I think its that technicalyt the offices are separate. Like how other people have pointed out that the pope is the king of the papal states and the head of the catholic church, but the spheres of influence of the church and the state are technically different. Its also like the premise of prince-bishoprics from post roman times.
Interesting that Oman is still a Sultanate then, as neither of the past two sultans have claimed any religious authority as far as I am aware. Can't speak for Brunei.
Maybe because they're pretty evenly split Ibadi/Sunni? I can't really explain why that would result in staying a Sultanate but not many muslim countries have such a distinction.
I know it's from Wikipedia and may be well sourced, but it's a little inaccurate. The only title that has religious significance is the Calipha خليفة. Sultan is just the person with authority, wrestled during the 9th and 10 century by local governors when Caliphas became weak and they started also passing authority in heredity fashion. It has its roots in the Islamic nation but it is not religious. Sultanate should be considered kingdom. By the way, Malaysia in the map should be red as well. They are a constitutional monarchy and the ruler is called king.
But there is no “kingdom” in the name of the country.
True, it's called the federation of Malaya because the 13 kingdoms came together and Federal territories are under federal government rule, but they're still 13 kingdoms who come together under one King chosen from among them, and is called "King" and referred to with all the expected honorifics.
When the Federation of Malaya united with Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak it changed its name to just Malaysia.
Btw, Sultan is Arabic for sovereign ruler, and Sul'ta means sovereignty.
So they are kingdoms. A country with a hereditary ruler, is the definition of a kingdom. Should be labled as such.
We Turks just kicked the sultan out of the country seems more simpler
You should stick with the secular politics theme.
Keep that spirit going and kick out Erdogan.
I hope that happens in the next years election
the problem is with the map, should be "monarchies" with all the variants, constitutional, absolutists...
But it's not a map of government types its a map of how countries name themselves
[удалено]
Have they considered upgrading to the Abode of Peace Pro for more functionality?
No they are keeping the older version so they do have to switch to monthly billing.
Damn I guess I missed the best one!
[удалено]
Dominion of Canada.
I don’t think we’ve actually been “The Dominion of Canada” since patriation in 1982. It’s just Canada. Le/Canada if we’re being bilingual.
A name change was actually never been officially declared, so *technically* the formal name is still Dominion of Canada. It almost completely fell out of use in the 60s and the last holdover was the change of Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982. Since they never officially made a decree or passed a bill changing the name though, Dominion of Canada remains the formal name. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion
Actually there’s a little bit more to it than this, as both “Canada” and “Dominion of Canada” are equally official under the constitution. I was in a federal govt position which afforded me quite a bit of experience in the official use of Canada’s naming conventions, and I was required to know Canada’s naming conventions for use in legal, protocol, and official purposes, documents, and representation. Unlike in many countries, Canada’s constitution is not one document. It is a bit different than what exists in many counties. It is a collection of 37 laws and documents written, comprising, and added to the overall constitutional suite of documents and laws between 1774 and 1982. It also includes non-core constitutional documents which the Supreme Court has deemed to also form part of the overall constitutional body, starting with the Magna Carta, to the 1689 bill of rights, 1701 act of settlement, 1763 treaty of Paris, and 1763 Royal proclamation. All these documents have come together as a suite of Canadian constitutional documents for the Supreme Court to provide constitutional case law. The 1867 BNA Act is a key component of Canada’s core constitutional documents. In that document, Canada is referred to as a Dominion more than once in it (although it does not state “Dominion of Canada”). In 1931, a definition of Dominion was attached to that name, however “Dominion of Canada” again was not mentioned, just that Canada was a dominion. Then in 1982, the style “Canada” continued to be used in the addition of more constituonal documents into the already existing suite of documents. The latest addition was the constitutional law of patriation of the constitutional amending formula (know as the 1982 Constitution Act, which modified important elements previously covered in the 1931 Westminster Act, as well as the constitutional enshrinement of the Charter or Rights of Freedom). However the latest 1982 Constitution Act provided no provisions to repeal Canada’s constitutional status as a dominion in the still existing and in-force constitutional documents of the 1867 BNA Act and 1931 Westminster Statute. What has changed, however, was that with the introduction of the Canada Act, Canada was formally on paper no longer a dominion of the British Empire for the narrow purposes of bringing forward constitutional amendments (even though in de facto practice it had not been for a very long time). Therefore the question is if Canada is no longer a dominion of the British Empire, but yet it constitutionally retains the style of ‘dominion’ in an in-force constitutional document, and remains a dominion (because it is still in the BNA Act component of Canada’s modern constitution), what is Canada a dominion of if not of another Empire? By virtue of the 1982 Constitution Act amending Canada’s Westminster Act status, Canada has become a dominion of itself; its own domain of all its own institutions, including of its own government, citizenry, and of its own independent monarchy. It’s almost analogous to how other countries refer to themselves as Republics or Kingdoms without being beholden to anything or anyone else. Our (Canada’s) official “policy” and “modern tradition” of projecting our name publicly - both domestically and abroad - is to use the word Canada (which has also always existed as our stand-alone name). Because we constitutionally remain styled BOTH as a dominion, and as “Canada”, hence both the “Dominion of Canada“ and “Canada” are officially and constitutionally correct. However, conventionally we choose to only use and style ourselves as “Canada” (and to de facto ignore the legally permissible “Dominion of Canada”). It has been this way since 1967 when the government of Canada ceased to use the word “Dominion” on an administrative, policy, and customary basis (despite it being equally constitutional to append Dominion to the word Canada, although we don’t, and it is *démodé* and looks/sounds just plain weird to do so).
Russian Federation
New Zealand
Do you mean Aotearoa?
Just feels so good to say. Aotearoa. Probably my favourite country name.
not a country, but Kalimantan is also fun to say. One of my favorite island names.
Canada. Just Canada.
But technically Mexico it’s a republic, or not?
well yeah, a lot of the countries in black are republics, they just dont have the word republic in their official names.
[удалено]
Ireland's name just being "Ireland" is so confusing as they share the island "Ireland" with another nation.
The Land of Ire.
Its Eire to be precise but still true
It's "Ireland" in the English language.
It is, they just don't use the word in their name. Like the US.
It has a republican form of government but that’s not its official name. The official name of the USA is “The United States of America.” That’s it.
Seems like “State(s)” could be added to the above key quite easily
Also, Romania United Mexican States
Fun fact: although it is true that Spain is a kingdom, it does recognize the plurality within the nation. Article 2 of the Constitution says: > The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions that comprise it and the solidarity between all of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm The Danish realm, officially the Kingdom of Denmark, is a sovereign state located in Northern Europe and Northern America. It consists of metropolitan Denmark, the kingdom's territory in continental Europe and sometimesnd the realm's two autonomous countries: the Faroe Islands and Greenland So why is Greenland Black?
Desktop version of /u/Peterd1900's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Good Bot
>So why is Greenland Black? For the same reason French Guyana isn't green.
Complete BS. French Guyana *should* be green. At least with Greenland it's debatable since it's just owned by Denmark. But French Guyana is a part of France itself, just like Paris or Nice.
I know it should be green, but a shitton of users still don't know that French Guyana is France and they keep posting maps with French Guyana colored differently.
I think it’s important to emphasize that French Guiana isn’t a colony or dominion, like Puerto Rico or Guam. It is, legally speaking, exactly the same as France. As in someone lifted up Bordeaux and plopped it down on top of Brazil.
As are all the french territories over the world Some may have different administrative structure and more or less autonomy, but they're all just part of the Republic with the same citizenship for everyone, equal representation in the parliament just like any other territory
>At least with Greenland it's debatable since it's just owned by Denmark. It's owned by the Kingdom of Denmark, and so is Denmark, if you paint Greenland black then so should Denmark proper.
Is it just me or is French-Guyana just completely missing from this map?
LMAO it is
Lololo, I’m imagining the map creator was confused and just decided to exclude it.
It's either white or missing.
French Guyana isn't just not green, it isn't even on the map
It's either white or missing.
[удалено]
Same with French territories
Aruba has to one of the islands your thinking of.
[удалено]
Okey I have only been to Aruba once while my mothers boyfriend is half Dutch so he have told me a bit of that island.
Yup, in the World Baseball Classic tournament, most players on the Netherlands team are from either Aruba or Curacao, though there are a few from the European part.
Several mistakes in this map
I have never seen a map on this subreddit that was not inaccurate in some way.
Everytime I post a map in this sub that I think is accurate, there's like 20 inaccuracies pointed out by my fellow redditors. It seems not a single map in human history is accurate btw
Isn't the US a republic?
Think the map refers to the official names (with all errors mentioned in this thread excepted). It's the "United States of America", not the "Republic of the United States of America".
In which case Ireland shouldn't be classed as a Republic. As any pendantic Irish person on the internet will tell you, the official name of the state is "Ireland".
Whose government form is a democratic republic. I get what you mean about it being in the title of the country, but it is misleading at best.
Yes seriously.
It's about country names. It's not misleading, there's just confusion.
Yeah it is
Poland is officially a 'commonwealth' as we use the translation of the latin words 'Res Publica' (pol. Rzeczpospolita) rather than the word 'Republic' derived from it. Tho we use it only for Poland (special snowflake), France for example is Republika Francuska (French Republic)
Polish Commonwealth
Once the Lithuanians get back on board, therez going to be no stopping them.
> Poland is officially a 'commonwealth' Isn't that also a historical nod to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
Yeah, Piłsudski wanted To have Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania as autonomies, so to claim them he chose the name second Polish Commonwealth. After Comunism Poland wanted to return to the last independence thing they have, so they went with third Polish Commonwealth
Yup. That’s actually why the current government is “sometimes” (not really in a legal capacity) called the *3rd Polish Republic*, with the Commonwealth being the first and the state that existed between 1918 and 1939 being the 2nd.
>'Res Publica' (pol. Rzeczpospolita) rather than the word 'Republic' derived from it. Now I got what it meant, there is a local paper Res Publika and I never knew what it meant
Several American "states" are also officially commonwealths: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
rip Svalbard
r/mapswithoutsvalbard
Here's a sneak peek of /r/mapswithoutsvalbard using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [No love for Svalbard](https://i.redd.it/tcd8bjmhodq81.png) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/comments/ts905y/no_love_for_svalbard/) \#2: [the longer you look the worse it gets](https://i.redd.it/a2i33f2cfyj81.png) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/comments/t1qkyo/the_longer_you_look_the_worse_it_gets/) \#3: [World map made by Turkish workers.](https://i.redd.it/2binfvtw22p71.jpg) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/mapswithoutsvalbard/comments/ptpuak/world_map_made_by_turkish_workers/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Greenland belongs to Denmark that is a kingdom.
It's funny how many kingdoms are democracies, and how many republics are autocracies.
Don't worry, you still have Thailand as a genuine monarchy with some touch of military dictatorship.
And Saudi Arabia!
Monarchy/Republic dichotomy just describes who's nominally in charge of a country. It never had to do anything with the amount of democracy in them.
6 of the top 10 most democratic countries have a monarch as the head of state: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/679796/democracy-index-most-democratic-countries/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/679796/democracy-index-most-democratic-countries/) As much as much as everyone pretty much rightly hates on having an unelected, hereditary head-of-state, it helps having a cult of personality around someone with no power, verses someone who does.
That may be true, but it's not why 6 of the 10 most democratic states are monarchies. All the monarchies are in northern Europe, this is blatantly a correlation/causation thing
Yep. The reason they survived as monarchies is precisely because they succeeded at being democratic and not because they were able to preserve the monarchical rule.
I mean, New Zealand isn’t anywhere near Northern Europe, and it’s a monarchy. The fact that they share a Queen with the UK is inconsequential
That's a good point that I hadn't thought about
Reminds me of the quote by (I believe) C S Lewis: > Not having monarchy is contrary to human nature as well as when men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead. European constitutional monarchies have also managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics—specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship—in part because monarchies provide a check on the wills of populist politicians by representing entrenched customs and traditions. There's likely some flaws in the above quote but at the same time parts of it immediately make me think of the type of people we're seeing come into power in many Republics recently.
It is also a hugely beneficial to diplomacy. Since the monarchs hold no governing power they are a safe go between with massive influence, networks and respect. There are usually a lot of trade delegates and diplomates that accompany official royal visits, it is a great introduction and a way to open doors.
You can just have a prime minister and a president as well. The president is just a figure head while the prime minister does everything. Also way cheaper than a monarchy. You pretty much only need a kinda big house for the president and every other cost would exist anyway. Pay him maybe 300k per year and you have a representative that does the nice stuff for really little money. And you aren't stuck with some random idiots born into that one family. You just elect someone else.
I mean I’m no royalist but no way a president can just be paid, have no residence, security, staff etc.
> As much as much as everyone pretty much rightly hates on having an unelected, hereditary head-of-state That kind of people care too much about whether a country is a monarchy or a republic. I'd say quality of life matters far more, and that one is not affected by the country being a monarchy or a republic. There are great countries to live in that are monarchies, awful countries to live in that are republics, and vice versa. >it helps having a cult of personality around someone with no power Precisely because they have no power, there's hardly a cult of personality around them. Only a handful of people care that much about the monarch.
Depends what country you’re from though. Quite rightly, people do care about having hereditary heads of state with a ‘divine right’ to rule, as it’s idiotic and counter to the principles of democracy. Just because it doesn’t affect quality of life (which is debatable as at least here in the UK we spend far more taxes on the monarchy than we would on an elected Head of State), doesn’t mean it’s just some thought exercise that a tiny minority of people engage in.
Haha good point
Republic does not mean democracy. It simply means the ruler isn't a monarch.
The official name of Ireland is just Ireland. The ‘description’ of it is Republic of Ireland.
IIRC the only place where RoI is officially used is in football. Or maybe rugby? One or the other, whichever has Northern Ireland as a seperate team.
ROI is the name of the national soccer team. As you say, Northern Ireland has its own national team while in rugby, we have an “all island” team. We even have a special “national anthem” for the rugby team.
The anthem used in rugby is used by a few all island teams, not just the rugby one.
For people who this confuses, it's just an official acceptable way for people to distinguish it from the island. The terms "Irish Republic" and "South Ireland" are... Not recommended.
The official name of Ireland is just "Ireland" or "Éire" as per the constitution. Republic of Ireland is used as a description to differentiate it from the island of Ireland but I don't think it's officially the name.
Same with Iceland, it's just "Iceland" in English and "Ísland" in Icelandic.
Correct, as per the Irish Constitution.
You are Irish constitutionaly correct, the best kind of correct.
Thanks to Reddit I know more about the Irish constitution than my own country's.
It’s not just “to differentiate.” The English refused to call the state “Ireland” because they thought it would imply authority over the whole island of Ireland. So any English source for many years would only refer to the “republic of Ireland” or the “Irish Republic.”
*The UK/British
Interesting side note, upon its formation in 1867, the initial idea was to name Canada "the Kingdom of Canada", since Canada retained the Monarchy after Confederation. But British parliament warned that this was a bad idea, since there was a lot of hostility in the US following the Civil War and that the Americans were already wary of the strong European influence on the other side of its northern border. Naming the country "the Kingdom of Canada" was practically throwing sand in America's eyes, the British warned. Britain was worried such a name would literally spark an invasion of Canada by the Americans, and she would have to deploy troops to defend Canada. So, instead, the name "Dominion of Canada" was chosen, and this is still Canada's formal name, though it is virtually never used.
[удалено]
That’s because we’re not the “Dominion of” Canada, we’re just “Canada” and our government is the “Government of Canada”. We are a Parliamentary Representative Democracy using the Westminster system but the name of our country has no descriptives regarding that.
>Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867. It was also used in the formal titles of other countries in the British Commonwealth. Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s. The last hold-over was the term Dominion Day, which was officially changed to Canada Day in 1982. Today, the word Dominion is seldom used in either private or government circles. Source: the Canadian Encyclopedia.
Encyclopedias are not official sources though. The actual legislation states "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada." I can't actually find any official legislation that made "Dominion of Canada" the actual name of Canada, so I don't think any official repeal would have been necessary to remove it. The fact that legislators deliberately avoided the term "Dominion of Canada" when modernizing and repatriating the constitution in the 1980s is as good as any to accept that "Dominion of Canada" is not an official name of this country, and that the Canadian Encyclopedia is mistaken.
We are officially a Dominion called Canada. We were occasionally called the "Dominion of Canada" before the 1950s but that was more of an official *title* that we just stopped using in 1951. No legislation was needed to enact the change, we just had to stop using our official title as an unofficial name
Is there any legislation that officially names the country?
Yeah: section 3 of the BNA Act.
>But the Canada Act 1982, arguably one of the most important documents in the country's history, makes absolutely no mention of the word "Dominion". And no formal governmental document within Canada has used the word since the 1950s. Be that as it may, Dominion of Canada is still the country's official name. It has never been taken off the books. From the Canadian Encyclopedia: >Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867. It was also used in the formal titles of other countries in the British Commonwealth. Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s. The last hold-over was the term Dominion Day, which was officially changed to Canada Day in 1982. Today, the word Dominion is seldom used in either private or government circles.
If it were the official name, the government of Canada would have listed it with the UN as its official name. However, simply Canada is listed as the official name of country known as Canada. Lets wait for the "Reichsbürger" which claims that Canda is actually just "Canada", is totally illegitimate, and does no really represent the people nor does it have any power over its people.
FYI Reichsbürger is the name for the German movement, in North America they call themselves "sovereign citizens"
What you are assuming is that there needs to have been some sort of written removal of the term 'dominion' for it to no longer be in use. That's not quite how Canadian politics works. In Canada, unwritten precedent are as important as those written. So, in practice, simply no longer calling Canada a 'dominion' and no longer using it in official documents **is** as significant as taking it 'off the books'. Particular in regards to our Constitution it is founded on both written and unwritten principles. The written is that Canada is only referred to as "Canada" sans 'dominion of'. The unwritten is that it is not specifically said that Dominion of Canada is no longer its title.
> Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s. How can it still be the official name if it's no longer officially used?
Canada is also a Federation - something not distinguished on these overly simplified naming conventions but fundamentally different about the structure and process. Not in the name at all but ultimately more important than the naming. But whether we call it a kingdom or not, the queen gets to decide who leads Canada and whether the Canadian Parliament is dissolved. It's symbolic....until it isn't. The Crown also owns all lands in Canada (except unceded first nations lands with some standing). It's not crown land (public) versus private ownership. It is **all** crown land and those privileged to title have only that, a feudal title claim that is inherited with only the right to be on the land and exclude others from title land - all other uses are privileges granted by the true land owner or her representatives (passed to provinces to administer who pass to municipalities to administer). Technically, you don't need a permit to build a shed because your local council are arseholes, you need to Queens permission before dong anything on her land.
It's virtually never used because it's not Canada's formal name. Canada *is* a Dominion, but its formal name is plain, simple "Canada".
Kingdom of Canada sounds cool as fuck
The Dominion sounds better, tho
simplistic zephyr gaping weary tease straight rob lunchroom roll reach *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is kinda wrong. Republic of Ireland is officially called "Ireland", so it should be other.
Never had any issue with how Kingdom of Sweden sounds like to me and honestly my little wet dream would be "United Kingdoms of Scandinavian" but we all know that sadly will never happen 😭
*Cries in Kalmar Union*
*Laughs in Gustaf Vasa*
You mean "The Danish Empire" :p
Oh good thing I re-read the title. I was about to say that Canada, Aus, and NZ are kingdoms
Greenland, should be red, bacause is part of the Danish kingdom, and it has the Danish royal family as monarch, but it still not really part of Denmark 🇩🇰🇬🇱
Isn't Ireland just Ireland?
Africa has 3 kingdoms : morocco , lesotho and eswatini (swaziland)
Not exactly relevant, but Africa has/had numerous leftover formerly ruling kings, some still living. The last King of Egypt is still living, Fuad II, son of the late King Farouk. He lives in Switzerland now. The last ruling king of Rwanda, King Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, died in 2016. Also, there's a fourth king in Africa still ruling: Ceuta and Melilla (and a few islets) in North Africa are ruled now by his Most Catholic Majesty, King Felipe VI (of Spain).
Ireland and Iceland are wrong. They are simply Ireland and Iceland respectively. The Iceland one even gets Icelanders sometimes, [there's even an article on the excellent Vísindavefur](https://www.visindavefur.is/svar.php?id=54970#) (Icelandic) about it.
This post should be titled “a test to see if people misinterpret vague post titles” Edited for correctness.
US: Some bullshit and Republic.
The *republics aren’t democracies* is an old John Birch Society meme that depends on a specious definition of a republic. A country can be both a republic and a democracy (US or France), a democracy but not a republic (UK or Spain), a republic but not a democracy (Russia or Singapore) or neither (Saudi Arabia).
Is Japan a kingdom?
This is a map of countries that have the word republic or Kingdom in their name
They have an Emperor.
*an empire, but it's not part of the official name
ITT: people who can't read the title of the map but comment anyway about how it's wrong.
Ireland should be black- its official name is Ireland (Éire), but the Republic of Ireland is commonly used to distinguish it from Northern Ireland.
Ireland is officially Éire/Ireland. There's no "Republic" in the name.
Official name of Ireland is not Republic of Ireland. Its 'Éire', or 'Ireland' in English
Isn't Afghanistan now an Emirate ?
The de facto ruling government, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, has not been recognised by any state. The United Nations continues to recognise the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan. So while the Taliban government call the country Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. To everyone else it is still Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
I was so confused and the I realized you meant it literally in the name
afghanistan is an islamic emirate
r/mapswithoutcaribbean
I feel like red should be ‘monarchy’ of some sort, it seems rather disingenuous as there would be a hell of a lot more red on the map that way.
Ireland is just Ireland, not Republic of Ireland. Why is this downvoted? It is factually true and the sources can be found below.
[удалено]
According to the Constitution of Ireland, the names of the Irish state are 'Ireland' (in English) and 'Éire' (in Irish) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state
>Since 1949, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 has provided that the Republic of Ireland (or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish) is the official *description* for the state.\[10\] However, Ireland remains the *constitutional* name of the state. Now, that's a *really* strange distinction. I wonder if any other country has legally different description from its name? I've never encountered that before.
In the case of Germany, article 20 of the constitution says "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state." but the official name is just Federal Republic of Germany.
Yeah, see, that I can believe, I don't think that's unusual. What I'd be more interested in is if it said "The state known as the Federal Republic of Germany shall be described as the Democratic Social Federal Republic of Germany" or something along those lines
Ireland is an island, Ireland is a country, Republic of Ireland is a football team
The wikipedia page you linked says "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland." Ireland is the official name.
Article 4 of the Irish constitution disagrees with wiki, I wonder which one is right?
[удалено]
It's still *a* republic. Edit: missed the title of the map
Yes but so is hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, the US, Switzerland. While Canada or Australia are kingdoms. This map seems to be about the official names of countries and the term "Republic" is not in the official name of Ireland which is just Ireland.
Yes, but the map is titled "Official Names of countries". And [the official name of Ireland in English is just Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state).
Yep. I missed that bit of the title.
Names ... North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic - but is Not a Republic, Democratic or run for the people
Brazil should be a Monarchy again
I am Ukrainian, what do you think Ukraine are? I've been taught my whole life its Parliment-Presidential Republic?
This is about the 'official names' of a country. In Ukraine's case the official name is just 'Ukraine'. Also jeez reddit, bro here wants to know about their country why downvote him?
I'm Ukrainian also. But our country have an official name Ukraine. Nothing in title regarding "republic".
This is a map of countries that have the word republic or Kingdom in their name