Are Personal Unions Still Possible in Modern Day?

The map seems seriously flawed.

Cambodia, Nigeria, Uganda, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast are all Republics, not Monarchies.

It lists them a traditional monarchies, meaning that they have monarchs who are sopposed to rule there or something but for some reason don't...

it has someting to do with the colour, cause a single province in south africa has it too
 
As I read the law it does require the Swedish monarch to be at all times a member of the Church of Sweden:

Well there we go then. A British-Swedish personal union is practically impossible on legal grounds unless one can in communion with both the Church of England and the Church of Sweden at the same time. It also makes a Danish-Swedish personal union impossible as well unless one can be in communion with both the Church of Sweden and Church of Denmark at the same time.

I wonder if the laws are the same for the Norwegian monarchy.





I however was responding to the OP, which mentioned Japan. For your second paragraph, i don't think it works that way in Islamic monarchies. I can't think of a single case of an Islamic kingdom being inherited by or through a female.

I had thought it was that way too, but the Wiki seems to indicate that at least some of the Gulf monarchies have changed that rule:

Oman:

In the absence of a male heir, the reigning Sultan may nominate a brother or other male relative from amongst the descendants of Sultan Said bin Sultan.

This could mean either in the absence of any male heir (whether a son or a grandson through his daughter) the Sultan may nominate his brother or another male relative (again maybe directly descended through the male line or just any male whether through the male or a female line) descended from the Sultan who died in 1856.

Qatar:

The order of succession as the Ruler of Qatar is determined by appointments within the Al Thani family.

Kuwait:

The reigning Emir must appoint an heir apparent within one year of his ascension to the throne; the nomination must also be approved by a majority of members of the National Assembly. The Heir Apparent has to be at least thirty years of age on the date of his royal proclamation, of sound mind and the legitimate son of Muslim parents. The position of Emir is also traditionally alternated between the two main branches of the Al-Sabah family, the Al-Salem and Al-Jaber branches.

Bahrain:

Succession to the Bahraini throne is determined by primogeniture amongst the male descendants of Sheikh Isa bin Ali Al Khalifa (1848 – 1932). However, the ruling King of Bahrain has the right to appoint any of his other sons as his successor if he wishes to

The articles though are all unclear as to whether succession could go through a female to another male.

What would happen if there were no direct male descendants left is unclear, but since a lot of the monarchies seems to have the power to appoint pretty much whoever they want from within the ruling family to be the heir then it doesn't seem impossible that one of those emirs could appoint a grandson who happens to be the son of his daughter and the son of a ruling emir from another country.
 
Actually in Dutch law it is not possible for a monarch to rule another country than the Netherlands (or Luxemburg). So no peronal unions with the Netherlands are possible. Although I must admit that if the situation occurs (which is extremly unlikely), the law will probably be changed.

Besides that, in Belgian law it is stated that an Orange-Nassau can't become ruler of Belgium.

Is Beatrix not head of state in Curacao, Sint Maarten, and Aruba? Technically, neither is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, unlike BES.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Is Beatrix not head of state in Curacao, Sint Maarten, and Aruba? Technically, neither is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, unlike BES.

Yes they are. BES are part of the country that is called the Netherlands. Which in turn is a country that is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, along with Curacao, Sint Maarten and Aruba.
 
Yes they are. BES are part of the country that is called the Netherlands. Which in turn is a country that is a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, along with Curacao, Sint Maarten and Aruba.

Exactly, Queen Beatrix is the queen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is a federation that consists out of Aruba, Curacao, St-Maarten and the Netherlands (which now includes Bonaire, Saba and St-Eustatius).
 
Inheritance through a female is legal in Sunni and not in Shi'a, although I don't think there are any Shi'a monarchies left. Through, not by - pretty sure there's no way an Islamic state gets a reigning female monarch.
 
Well there we go then. A British-Swedish personal union is practically impossible on legal grounds unless one can in communion with both the Church of England and the Church of Sweden at the same time. It also makes a Danish-Swedish personal union impossible as well unless one can be in communion with both the Church of Sweden and Church of Denmark at the same time.

In fact, it is; first, the Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians are Lutheran, which Anglican Communion churches have traditionally had very good relations with, so it would be easy to negotiate a joint communion with them if necessary, second all are members of the Porvoo Communion, which as the name indicates is a group of churches with full intercommunion. This in fact means that the monarchs of the relevant countries are already members of each other's churches, or at any rate are in communion with them, making the legal religion issues not.
 
No, and how Canada still retained it's royal ties to Britain I'll never know or understand.
It's only symbolic. They don't really exercise power. It's just we got the royalist american after independence of usa, then the english here still liked the king...
 
The map seems seriously flawed.

Cambodia, Nigeria, Uganda, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast are all Republics, not Monarchies.

It's referring to the fact that, for example, the government of Ghana is a republic, but the Ashanti Kingdom within Ghana is recognised by the Government to exist, have legal rulership over the Ashanti people, and have certain legal rights over consultation on land exploitation etc. even if it does not actually rule independently. Think Princely States in the British Raj.
 
It lists them a traditional monarchies, meaning that they have monarchs who are sopposed to rule there or something but for some reason don't...

it has someting to do with the colour, cause a single province in south africa has it too
The purple countries have sub-national monarchies. Meaning that they have legally recognized 'kings' (in some cases several), but any political power they have is informal and they are not head of state. They are more akin (in legal terms) to the nobility of various European republics, where the title is recognized but it doesn't provide extra rights. Unlike the European aristocracy, though, they still exercise a great deal of power because many people are devoted to them.
 
I don't think religion would be too much of an issue for the Protestant states. The Queen, for example, is both Supreme Governor of the Church of England while still being an ordinary member of the Kirk. It's legally quite easy to uphold different churches in different countries, especially if the churches are in communion.
 
Top