Kings vs Monarchs

[Rebellion to Tyrants]

In an article Published in History Is Now Magazine I begin to explain the vital differences between a Medieval king, and a monarch.

https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/bl ... n-emperors

[ERISS]

Technically, a monarchy is all political systems where only one man has the power (mon-arch).
Usually a king is defined as a monarch by religious power and hereditary succession.
A true king always has the power, but to please monarchists
the nowadays aristocracies name the prince as a so-said "king"
(a prince is just a first named, he has not to always rule, like you say in middle-age).

I know, political words are all messed-up, like nowaday "democracy" are in fact republics, which are aristocracies (elected parliament), if not monarchies (power of the president), never actual democracies...
Republics which are more "absolute" than past monarchies (like you say)

Bourgeoisy had to make us forget the scientific political systems of ancient philosophs:
. One rules: monarchy
. A plural minority rules (best one is aristocracy)
. A majority actually rules: democracy (which is the worst system for those philosophs)
For each all three, they show their good system, and bad one.

In ancient time, political philosophs tell "the democracy is the very bad side of republics".
Nowadays, they say "republic is the good side of democracy": political correctness lol.