text:
Airbus A330

The Airbus A330 is a wide-body aircraft developed and produced by Airbus.

Airbus began developing larger A300 derivatives in the mid-1970s, giving rise to the A330 twinjet as well as the A340 quadjet, and launched both designs along with their first orders in June 1987. The A330-300, the first variant, took its maiden flight in November 1992 and entered service with Air Inter in January 1994. The slightly shorter A330-200 variant followed in 1998 with Canada 3000 as the launch operator.

The A330 shares many underpinnings with the airframe of the early A340 variants, most notably the same fuselage and wing components, and by extension the same structure. However, the A330 has two main landing gear legs instead of three, lower weights, and slightly different lengths. Both airliners have fly-by-wire controls as well as a similar glass cockpit to increase the commonality. The A330 was Airbus's first airliner to offer a choice of three engines: the General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, or the Rolls-Royce Trent 700. The A330-300 has a range of 11,750 km with 277 passengers, while the shorter A330-200 can cover 13,450 km with 247 passengers. Other variants include the A330-200F dedicated freighter, the A330 MRTT military tanker, and the ACJ330 corporate jet. The A330 MRTT was proposed as the EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 for the US Air Force's KC-X competition, but lost to the Boeing KC-46 in appeal after an initial win.

In July 2014, Airbus announced the re-engined A330neo (new engine option) comprising A330-800/900, which entered service with TAP Air Portugal in December 2018. With the exclusive, more efficient Trent 7000 turbofan and improvements including sharklets, it offers up to 14% better fuel economy per seat. The first-generation A330s (-200/200F/300) are now called A330ceo (current engine option).

Delta Air Lines is the largest operator with 69 airplanes in its fleet. A total of 1,798 orders have been placed for the A330 family, of which 1,604 have been delivered and 1,467 are in service with 148 operators. The global A330 fleet had accumulated more than 65 million flight hours since its entry into service. The A330 is the second most delivered wide-body airliner after the Boeing 777. It competes with the Boeing 767, smaller variants of the Boeing 777, and the 787. It is complemented by the larger Airbus A350, which succeeded the four-engined A340.

Background

Airbus's first airliner, the A300, was envisioned as part of a diverse family of commercial aircraft. Pursuing this goal, studies began in the early 1970s into derivatives of the A300. Before introducing the A300, Airbus identified nine possible variations designated B1 through B9. A tenth variant, the A300B10, was conceived in 1973 and developed into the longer-range Airbus A310. Airbus then focused its efforts on single-aisle (SA) studies, conceiving a family of airliners later known as the Airbus A320 family, the first commercial aircraft with digital fly-by-wire controls. During these studies Airbus turned its focus back to the wide-body aircraft market, simultaneously working on both projects.

In the mid-1970s, Airbus began development of the A300B9, a larger derivative of the A300, which would eventually become the A330. The B9 was essentially a lengthened A300 with the same wing, coupled with the most powerful turbofan engines available. It was targeted at the growing demand for high-capacity, medium-range, transcontinental trunk routes. Offering the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 but with 25 per cent better fuel efficiency, the B9 was seen as a viable replacement for the DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar trijets. It was also considered as a medium-ranged successor to the A300.

At the same time, a 200-seat four-engine version, the B11 (which would eventually become the A340) was also under development. The B11 was originally planned to take the place of narrow-body Boeing 707s and Douglas DC-8s then in commercial use, but would later evolve to target the long-range, wide-body trijet replacement market. To differentiate from the SA series, the B9 and B11 were re-designated as the TA9 and TA11, with TA standing for "twin aisle". Development costs were reduced by the two aircraft using the same fuselage and wing, with projected savings of US$500 million. Another factor was the split preference of those within Airbus and, more importantly, those of prospective customers; twinjets were favoured in North America, quad-jets desired in Asia, and operators had mixed views in Europe. Airbus ultimately found that most potential customers favoured four engines for their exemption from existing twinjet range restrictions and their ability to be ferried with one inactive engine. As a result, development plans prioritised the four-engined TA11 ahead of the TA9.

Design effort

The first specifications for the TA9 and TA11, aircraft that could accommodate 410 passengers in a one-class layout, emerged in 1982. They showed a large underfloor cargo area that could hold five cargo pallets or sixteen LD3 cargo containers in the forward, and four pallets or fourteen LD3s in the aft hold—double the capacity of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar or DC-10, and 8.46 m longer than the Airbus A300. By June 1985, the TA9 and TA11 had received more improvements, including the adoption of the A320 flight deck, digital fly-by-wire (FBW) control system, and side-stick control. Airbus had developed a common cockpit for their aircraft models to allow quick transition by pilots. The flight crews could transition from one type to another after only one week's training, which reduces operator costs. The two TAs would use the vertical stabiliser, rudder, and circular fuselage sections of the A300-600, extended by two barrel sections.

Airbus briefly considered the variable camber wing, a concept that requires changing the wing profile for a given phase of flight. Studies were carried out by British Aerospace (BAe), now part of BAE Systems, at Hatfield and Bristol. Airbus estimated this would yield a two per cent improvement in aerodynamic efficiency, but the feature was rejected because of cost and difficulty of development. A true laminar flow wing (a low-drag shape that improves fuel efficiency) was also considered but rejected.

With necessary funding available, the Airbus Supervisory Board approved the development of the A330 and A340 with potential customers on 27 January 1986. Its chairman Franz Josef Strauss stated afterwards that "Airbus Industrie is now in a position to finalise the detailed technical definition of the TA9, now officially designated as the A330, and the TA11, now called the A340, with potential launch customer airlines, and to discuss with them the terms and conditions for launch commitments." The designations were originally reversed and were switched so the quad-jet airliner would have a "4" in its name. Airbus hoped for five airlines to sign for both the A330 and A340, and on 12 May sent sale proposals to the most likely candidates, including Lufthansa and Swissair.

Engines
From the beginning of the TA9's development, a choice of engines from the three major engine manufacturers, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and GE Aviation, was planned. GE Aviation first offered the CF6-80C2. However, later studies indicated that more thrust was needed to increase the initial power capability from 267 to 289 kN. GE enlarged the CF6-80C2 fan from 236 to 244 cm and reduced the number of fan blades from 38 to 34 to create the CF6-80E1 with a thrust of 300 - 320 kN.

Rolls-Royce initially wanted to use the 267 kN Trent 600 to power Airbus's newest twinjet and the upcoming McDonnell Douglas MD-11. However, the company later agreed to develop an engine solely for the A330, the Trent 700, with a larger diameter and 311 kN of thrust. The A330 became the first Airbus aircraft for which Rolls-Royce supplied engines.

Similarly, Pratt & Whitney signed an agreement that covered the development of the A330-exclusive PW4168. The company increased the fan size from 94 in to 100 in, enabling the engine to deliver 311 kN of thrust. Like the CF6-80E1, 34 blades were used instead of the 38 found on the smaller PW4000 engines.

Production and testing

In preparation for the production of the A330 and the A340, Airbus's partners invested heavily in new facilities. In south-western England, BAe made a £7 million investment in a three-storey technical centre with 15000 m2 of floor area at Filton. In north Wales, BAe also spent £5 million on a new production line at its Broughton wing production plant. In Germany, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) invested DM400 million ($225 million) on manufacturing facilities in the Weser estuary, including at Bremen, Einswarden, Varel, and Hamburg. France saw the biggest investments, with Aérospatiale constructing a new Fr.2.5 billion ($411 million) final-assembly plant adjacent to Toulouse-Blagnac Airport in Colomiers; by November 1988, the pillars for the new Clément Ader assembly hall had been erected. The assembly process featured increased automation, such as robots drilling holes and installing fasteners during the wing-to-fuselage mating process.

On 12 March 1987, Airbus received the first orders for the twinjet. Domestic French airline Air Inter placed five firm orders and fifteen options, while Thai Airways International requested eight aircraft, split evenly between firm orders and options. Airbus announced the next day that it would formally launch the A330 and A340 programmes by April 1987, with deliveries of the A340 to begin in May 1992 and A330 deliveries to start in 1993. Northwest Airlines signed a letter of intent for twenty A340s and ten A330s on 31 March. In 2001, the program cost with the A340 was.

BAe eventually received £450 million of funding from the UK government, well short of the £750 million it had originally requested for the design and construction of the wings. The German and French governments also provided funding. Airbus issued subcontracts to companies in Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Greece, Italy, India, Japan, South Korea, Portugal, the United States, and the former Yugoslavia. With funding in place, Airbus launched the A330 and A340 programmes on 5 June 1987, just before the Paris Air Show. At that time, the order book stood at 130 aircraft from ten customers, including lessor International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC). Of the order total, forty-one were for A330s. In 1989, Asian carrier Cathay Pacific joined the list of purchasers, ordering nine A330s and later increasing this number to eleven.

The wing-to-fuselage mating of the first A330, the tenth airframe of the A330 and A340 line, began in mid-February 1992. This aircraft, coated with anti-corrosion paint, was rolled out on 31 March without its General Electric CF6-80E1 engines, which were installed by August. During a static test, the wing failed just below requirement; BAe engineers later resolved the problem. At the 1992 Farnborough Airshow, Northwest deferred delivery of sixteen A330s to 1994, following the cancellation of its A340 orders.

The first completed A330 was rolled out on 14 October 1992, with the maiden flight following on 2 November. Weighing 181840 kg, including 20980 kg of test equipment, the A330 became the largest twinjet to have flown until the first flight of the Boeing 777. The flight lasted five hours and fifteen minutes during which speed, height, and other flight configurations were tested. Airbus intended the test flight programme to comprise six aircraft flying a total of 1,800 hours. On 21 October 1993, the Airbus A330 received the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certifications simultaneously after 1,114 cumulative airborne test hours and 426 test flights. At the same time, weight tests came in favourable, showing the plane was 500 kg underweight.

On 30 June 1994, a fatal crash occurred during certification of the Pratt & Whitney engine when an A330 crashed near Toulouse. Both pilots and the five passengers died. The flight was designed to test autopilot response during a one-engine-off worst-case scenario with the centre of gravity near its aft limit. Shortly after takeoff, the pilots had difficulty setting the autopilot, and the aircraft lost speed and crashed. An investigation by an internal branch of Direction Générale d'Aviation concluded that the accident resulted from slow response and incorrect actions by the crew during the recovery. This led to a revision of A330 operating procedures.

Entry into service
Air Inter became the first operator of the A330, having put the aircraft into service on 17 January 1994 between Orly Airport, Paris, and Marseille. Deliveries to Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and Thai Airways International were postponed to address delamination of the composite materials in the PW4168 engine's thrust reverser assembly. Thai Airways received its first A330 during the second half of the year, operating it on routes from Bangkok to Taipei and Seoul. Cathay Pacific received its Trent 700 A330s following the certification of that engine on 22 December 1994. MAS received its A330 on 1 February 1995 and then rescheduled its other ten orders. Its initial range was around 4,000 nautical miles but subsequent refinements increased the range of newer models to 5,000 nautical miles and by 2015, the range was 6,100 nautical miles.

Shrinking the -300: the -200
In response to a decline in A330-300 sales, increased market penetration by the Boeing 767-300ER, and airline requests for increased range and smaller aircraft, Airbus developed the Airbus A330-200. Known as the A329 and A330M10 during development, the A330-200 would offer nine per cent lower operating costs than the Boeing 767-300ER. The plane was aimed at the 11900 km sector, where Airbus predicted demand for 800 aircraft between 1995 and 2015. The project, with US$450 million in expected development costs, was approved by the Airbus Industrie Supervisory Board on 24 November 1995.The A330-200 first flew on 13 August 1997. The sixteen-month certification process involved logging 630 hours of test flights. The A330-200's first customer was ILFC; these aircraft were leased by Canada 3000, who became the type's first operator.

As Airbus worked on its A330-200, hydraulic pump problems were reported by both A330 and A340 operators. This issue was the suspected cause of a fire that destroyed an Air France A340-200 in January 1994. On 4 January of that year, a Malaysia Airlines A330-300, while undergoing regular maintenance at Singapore Changi Airport, was consumed by a fire that started in the right-hand main undercarriage well. The incident caused US$30 million in damage, and the aircraft took six months to repair. Consequently, operators were advised to disable electrical pumps in January 1997.

Proposed variants
In 1996 Airbus evaluated a 12-frame stretch which would be able to carry 380 passengers over almost 7,000 km, the -400, and a "super-stretch" using the A340-600's 22-frame stretch and powered by 400 kN engines, the -600.
 * A330-400/600

In February 2000 it was reported that a 250-seat A330-100 replacement for the A300/A310 could be launched by year end for 2003 deliveries. Shortened and keeping its fly-by-wire cockpit and systems, with a cleaner A300-600 wing with sealed control surfaces and winglets and at least two new engine types among the GE CF6-80, the PW4000 and the A340-500/600's Trent 500 aimed for 5% better SFC than the A300-600. Its 44.8 m wing allowed a 173 t MTOW and 7,770 km (7,770 km; 7,770 km) range. In May, the 210-260 seat design had evolved towards keeping the A330 60.3 m span wing and engines for a 195 t MTOW and 4,500 nmi range. Interested customers included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd.
 * A330-100/-500

Announced in July at Farnborough Air Show, the -500 first flight was targeted for early 2003 and introduction in early 2004. ILFC would take 10 if it was launched and CIT was interested too. The eight-frame shrink would carry 222 in three classes or 266 in two classes. Its initial 13,000 km range would be followed by derated versions for 8,000 km. The market was lukewarm as airlines like Lufthansa, Hapag-Lloyd and Singapore Airlines were unimpressed by the long-range A330-500, favouring a more refined short-range design. Lack of airline demand made lessors interest wane and as ILFC would order as 30 -500s, it would be with converting rights to larger A330-200/300.

To compete with Boeing's 7E7 (later 787), Airbus offered a minimum-change derivative called the A330-200Lite in 2004. As the name indicated, this proposed variant would have had a lower maximum takeoff weight of 202 t, coupled with de-rated engines, giving a range of 7400 km. It was aimed at Singapore Airlines, who had looked to replace its Airbus A310-300s. The variant was also to be a replacement for Airbus A300-600Rs and early Boeing 767s. Airlines, however, were not satisfied with the compromised aircraft; the company instead proceeded with an entirely new aircraft, the A350 XWB.
 * A330-200Lite

Further developments

Initially, the GE90 was only one of three Boeing 777 options, and GE Aviation then-CEO Brian H. Rowe would have paid for the development of putting it on an A330; however, Airbus' strategy for long-haul was the four-engine A340, missing the market favouring twins.

Responding to lagging A300-600F and A310F sales, Airbus began marketing the Airbus A330-200F, a freighter derivative of the A330-200, around 2001. The freighter has a range of 7400 km with a 65 t payload, or 5900 km with 70 t. The plane utilises the same nosegear as the passenger version; however, it is attached lower in the fuselage and housed in a distinctive bulbous "blister fairing". This raises the aircraft's nose so that the cargo deck is level during loading, as the standard A330's landing gear results the plane having a nose-down attitude while on the ground.

The A330-200F made its maiden flight on 5 November 2009. This marked the start of a four-month, 180-hour certification programme. JAA and FAA certifications were expected by March the following year although approval by the JAA was delayed until April. The first delivery was subsequently made to the Etihad Airways cargo division, Etihad Cargo, in July 2010.

On 25 September 2013 at the Aviation Expo China (Beijing Airshow), Airbus announced a new lower weight A330-300 variant, optimised for use on domestic and regional routes in high growth markets with large populations and concentrated traffic flows; China and India were recognised as prime targets. This variant could carry up to 400 passengers. The increased efficiency, however, comes more from the installation of more seats than any weight reduction. On relatively short, yet congested routes, the A330 competes against single-aisle jetliners. While the A330's operating costs in these conditions are not far above those of the Boeing 737 or Airbus A321, the A320neo and 737 MAX promise more efficiency. Where the frequency of flights cannot be increased, using larger aircraft, such as the A330, is the only available option to increase capacity. The first customer for the A330 Regional was announced as Saudia at the 2015 Paris Air Show. In 2018, the unit cost of an A330-200 was US$238.5M, US$264.2M for an A330-300 and US$241.7M for an A330-200F.

New Engine Option

The A330neo ("neo" for "New Engine Option") is a development from the initial A330 (now A330ceo — "Current Engine Option"). A new version with modern engines developed for the Boeing 787 was called for by owners of the current A330. It was launched in July 2014 at the Farnborough Airshow, promising 14% better fuel economy per seat. It will use the larger Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 exclusively. Its two versions are based on the A330-200 and -300: the -800 should cover 8,150 nmi with 257 passengers while the -900 should cover 7,200 nmi with 287 passengers. The -900 made its first flight on 19 October 2017, received its EASA type certificate on 26 September 2018, and was first delivered to TAP Air Portugal on 26 November. The -800 made its first flight on 6 November 2018, aiming for a mid-2019 type certification and delivery in the first half of 2020.

Production
Airbus announced in February 2011 that it intended to raise production rates from seven-and-a-half/eight per month to nine per month in 2012, and ten in 2013. Production increased to 10 aircraft per month in April 2013, the highest for any Airbus wide-body aircraft. In 2012, Airbus expected the A330 to continue selling until at least 2020, with the A350-900 expected to replace the A330-300.

On 19 July 2013, Airbus delivered its 1000th A330 to Cathay Pacific. The A330 became the first Airbus wide-body airliner to reach 1,000 deliveries, and the fourth wide-body to achieve the milestone after the Boeing 747, 767, and 777. As of January 2019, a total of 1,496 A330ceos had been ordered, with 1,437 delivered.

In December 2014, Airbus announced that it would reduce A330 production to nine aircraft per month from ten, because of falling orders. Airbus did not rule out any further production cuts. The announcement led to an immediate drop in Airbus Group's stock price because the company derived a significant percentage of its cash flow and net profit from the A330 program; the A330's financial impact was magnified amid problems in the A350 and A380 programs. In February 2015, Airbus announced another production rate cut to six aircraft per month in the first quarter of 2016. This would extend A330ceo production to July 2017, allowing for a smooth transition to A330neo production, which was set to start in spring 2017. In February 2016, Airbus announced it would re-increase the production rate from 6 to 7 per month, in response to new A330 orders.

In April 2018, as a result of weakening demand, Airbus announced further rate cuts to 4-5 aircraft a month (50 per year) in 2019. In 2019, Airbus delivered 53 A330s (including 41 A330neos), including some delayed from 2018, and was set to reach a rate of 40 per year, to reflect softer demand for wide-bodies, as the backlog reached 331 (including 293 A330neos) − or years' worth of production.

The last A330-200 was delivered to OpenSkies (operating for LEVEL) on October 1, 2019, registered F-HLVN (subsequently reregistered EC-NNH in 2021). The last A330-300 built was registered EI-EIN and flown to Brussels Airport on February 28, 2020; Aer Lingus took delivery on 4 March 2020. At the time, four completed A330-300s for troubled Hong Kong Airlines were still undelivered. A330 MRTT/KC-30B and BelugaXL production both continue alongside that of the A330neo.

The COVID-19 pandemic reduced demand for new jets in 2020, and Airbus cut its monthly production from 4.5 to 2 A330s. In September 2020, the A330 reached a milestone of 1500 deliveries, Airbus's first twin-aisle aircraft to do so, and the third overall after the Boeing 747 and 777.

Design

The A330 is a medium-size, wide-body aircraft, with two engines suspended on pylons under the wings. A two-wheel nose undercarriage and two four-wheel bogie main legs built by Messier-Dowty support the aeroplane on the ground. Its MTOW grew from 212 t at introduction to 242 t in 2015, enhancing its payload-range performance. John Leahy states that it was intentionally being held down in takeoff weight and performance because Airbus avoided overlapping with the A340.

The airframe of the A330 features a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a wing virtually identical to that of the A340-200/300. On the A330-300, one engine is installed at the inboard pylon while the outboard pylon position is not used; for the A340-300, both engine pylons are used, which allows the A340-300 wing to sustain a higher (wing-limited) MTOW. This is as the A340's two engines at each wing provide a more equal force distribution (engine weight) over the wing, while also the total engine weight counteracting moment is located more outboard with more engine weight located further outboard on the wing, hence the wing root bending moment with equal TOW is less on the A340-300 than on the A330-300. The wings were designed and manufactured by BAe, which developed a long slender wing with a very high aspect ratio to provide high aerodynamic efficiency.

The wing is swept back at 30 degrees and, along with other design features, allows a maximum operating Mach number of 0.86. To reach a long span and high aspect ratio without a large weight penalty, the wing has relatively high thickness-to-chord ratio of 11.8% or 12.8%. Jet airliners have Thickness-to-chord ratios ranging from 9.4% (MD-11 or Boeing 747) to 13% (Avro RJ or 737 Classic). Each wing also has a 2.74 m tall winglet instead of the wingtip fences found on earlier Airbus aircraft.

The shared wing design with the A340 allowed the A330 to incorporate aerodynamic features developed for the former aircraft. The failure of International Aero Engines' radical ultra-high-bypass V2500 "SuperFan", which had promised around 15 per cent fuel burn reduction for the A340, led to multiple enhancements including wing upgrades to compensate. Originally designed with a 56 m span, the wing was later extended to 58.6 m and finally to 60.3 m. At 60.3 m, the wingspan is similar to that of the larger Boeing 747-200, but with 35 percent less wing area.

The A330 and A340 fuselage is based on that of the Airbus A300-600, with many common parts, and has the same external and cabin width: 5.64 m and 5.26 m. Typical seating arrangements are 2–2–2 six-abreast in business class and 2–4–2 eight-abreast in economy class. The fin, rudder, elevators, horizontal tail plane (used as fuel tank), flaps, ailerons, and spoilers are made of composite materials, making 10% of the structure weight. When necessary, the A330 uses the Honeywell 331–350C auxiliary power unit (APU) to provide pneumatics and electrical power.

The A330 shares the same glass cockpit flight deck layout as the A320 and the A340, featuring electronic instrument displays rather than mechanical gauges. Instead of a conventional control yoke, the flight deck features side-stick controls, six main displays, and the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS), which covers navigation and flight displays, as well as the Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitor (ECAM). Apart from the flight deck, the A330 also has the fly-by-wire system common to the A320 family, the A340, the A350, and the A380. It also features three primary and two secondary flight control systems, as well as a flight envelope limit protection system which prevents maneuvers from exceeding the aircraft's aerodynamic and structural limits.

Operational history
Airbus intended the A330 to compete in the Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards (ETOPS) market, specifically with the Boeing 767. (ETOPS is a standard that allows longer range flights away from a diversion airport for aircraft that have met special design and testing standards.) Instead of the "ETOPS out of the box" or "Early ETOPS" approach taken by Boeing with its 777, Airbus gradually increased ETOPS approval on the A330 using in-service experience. Airbus suggested that the A340 and the A330 were essentially identical except for their engine number, and that the A340's experience could be applied to the A330's ETOPS approval. The plans were for all three engine types to enter service with 90-minute approval, before increasing to 120 minutes after the total A330 fleet accumulated 25,000 flight hours, and then to 180 minutes after 50,000 flight hours, in 1995. Aer Lingus and Cathay Pacific were two important airlines assisting Airbus in this endeavour by building up in-service flight hours on over-ocean flights. In November 2009, the A330 became the first aircraft to receive ETOPS–240 approval, which has since been offered by Airbus as an option.

, the global A330 fleet of 1,482 aircraft had 12 years average aircraft age (≈2.5 years for A330neo), opened more than 300 new city pairs since the launch of the Boeing 787 in 2011, and accumulated more than 65 million flight hours since its entry into service with 99.5% operational reliability.

Variants
With the launch of Airbus A330neo, the existing members of the Airbus A330 family (A330-200, 200F, 300, and MRTT) received the Airbus A330ceo ("current engine option") name.

A330-200
The A330-200 is a shortened, longer-range variant, which entered service in 1998 with Korean Air. The typical range with 253 passengers in a three-class configuration is 13400 km. The A330-200 is ten fuselage frames shorter than the original −300, with a length of 58.82 m. To compensate for the smaller moment arm of the shorter fuselage, the vertical stabiliser height of the -200 was increased by 104 cm. The −200's wing was also modified; structural strengthening of the wing allowed the maximum takeoff weight of the −200 to be increased to 229.8 t. The −200 is offered with three engine types similar to those found on the −300, namely the General Electric CF6-80E, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, or Rolls-Royce Trent 700. Airbus also boosted fuel capacity to 139090 L by adding the centre section fuel tank, standard in the A340.

A new vertical stabiliser was introduced in 2004 beginning with MSN 555. This newer fin is shorter in height by 50 cm and was derived from the design of the vertical stabiliser of the A340-500 and -600, later becoming standard on all new A330-200s.

In 2008, Airbus released plans for a higher gross weight version of the A330-200 to more effectively compete against the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The new-build A330-200HGW had a 5 tonne increase in Maximum Takeoff Weight, allowing a 560 km range increase and a 3.4 t payload increase. Korean Air became the first customer on 27 February 2009 with an order for six −200HGWs. Deliveries of the first aircraft started in 2010.

In mid-2012, Airbus proposed another version of the −200 with the maximum gross weight increased by 2 t to 240 t. This version had its range extended by 270 nmi and carried 2.5 t more payload. It saw engine and aerodynamic improvements reducing its fuel burn by about 2%. In November 2012, it was announced that the gross weight was to be further increased to 242 t with the range extended by 350 nmi over the 238 t version. It was certified by the EASA on 8 September 2015.

The A330−200 competes with the Boeing 767-400ER and the new 787-8. In 1998, a newly delivered -200 was valued $94 million, rose over $100 million in 2005 but lowered at almost $75 million in 2019 as the market favours the -300 and the A330neo. The 2018 list price was US$238.5 million. , 661 of the −200 had been ordered, 656 of which had been delivered, with 572 aircraft in operation.

A330-200F

The A330-200F is an all-cargo derivative of the A330-200 capable of carrying 65 t over 7400 km or 70 t up to 5900 km. To overcome the standard A330's nose-down body angle on the ground, the A330F uses a revised nose undercarriage layout to provide a level deck during cargo loading. The normal A330-200 undercarriage is used, but its attachment points are lower in the fuselage, thus requiring a distinctive blister fairing on the nose to accommodate the retracted nose gear. Power is provided by two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. General Electric does not offer an engine for the A330-200F.

Airbus had delivered 38 aircraft with no outstanding orders. The list price is $241.7 million. As well as new-build freighters, Airbus has proposed passenger-to-freighter conversions of existing −200 airliners. The A330-200F is sized between the 767-300F and 777F, but trails both Boeing models in orders and deliveries.

A330-300
Powered by two General Electric CF6-80E1, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, or Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, the 63.69 m long −300 has a range of 11,750 km, typically carries 277 passengers with a 440 exit limit and 32 LD3 containers. It received European and American certification on 21 October 1993 after 420 test flights over 1,100 hours. The −300 entered service on 16 January 1994. The A330-300 is based on a stretched A300 fuselage but with new wings, stabilisers and fly-by-wire systems.

In 2010, Airbus offered a new version of the −300 with the maximum gross weight increased by two tonnes to 235 t. This enabled 120 nmi extension of the range as well as 1.2 t increase in payload. In mid-2012, Airbus proposed another increase of the maximum gross weight to 240 t. It is planned to be implemented by mid-2015. This −300 version will have the range extended by 400 nmi and will carry 5 t more payload. It will include engine and aerodynamic improvements reducing its fuel burn by about 2%. In November 2012, it was further announced that the gross weight will increase from 235 t to 242 t, and the range will increase by 500 nmi to 6100 nmi. Airbus is also planning to activate the central fuel tank for the first time for the −300 model.

As of December 2020, a total of 779 of the -300 had been ordered, 771 of which had been delivered, with 742 in operation. The 2015 list price is $264 million. The closest competitors have been the Boeing 777-200/200ER, 787-9, and the now out-of-production McDonnell Douglas MD-11.

A330-300HGW

In 2000, it was reported that Airbus was studying an A330-300 version with a higher gross weight. It was named A330-300HGW and had a takeoff weight of 240 t, 7 t greater than the -300's weight at the time. The version would have a strengthened wing and additional fuel capacity from a 41600 L centre section fuel tank. The A330-300HGW's range was increased to over 11000 km. Among those that showed interest was leasing company ILFC, which sought airliners that could fly from the US West Coast to Europe.

Power was to be supplied by all three engines offered to A330-200 and A330-300 with lower gross weight. Airbus also considered using the new Engine Alliance GP7000 engine for the A330-300HGW, which would have been the engine's first twinjet application. The −300HGW was to enter airline service in 2004. However, the -300HGW programme was not launched and quietly disappeared.

The 240-tonne A330 reappeared years later when Airbus announced at the 2012 Farnborough Airshow that it would be an available option for both the A330-300 and the A330-200. In November 2012, the maximum take off weight was further increased to 242 tonnes. The first of these aircraft was delivered to Delta Air Lines on 28 May 2015.

A330 Regional
In September 2013, Airbus announced a version of the A330-300, named A330 Regional or A330-300 Regional. The A330 Regional has seating for up to around 400 passengers, with reduced engine thrust, reduced maximum takeoff weight of 199 t, and reduced range of 2700 nmi. It is said that the maximum takeoff weight of these aircraft is an "easy upgrade to 242 t", which is the extended range version with range of 6350 nmi. It is said to provide up to 26% lower operating costs than the longer range version A330-300.

On 18 August 2016, Airbus delivered the first A330 Regional to Saudia.

A330P2F

The A330P2F freighter conversion programme was launched at the 2012 Singapore Airshow with the support of Airbus, their Dresden-based Elbe Flugzeugwerke (EFW) joint venture and Singapore-based engineering firm ST Aerospace. Targeting a 2016 introduction, Airbus then estimated a market requirement for 2,700 freighters over 20 years, half of these mid-sized, including 900 conversions.

The A330-300P2F, adapted for express delivery and e-commerce lower densities, can carry up to 62 t over 3,650 nmi. Following flight tests in October 2017 and EASA supplemental type certificate awarded in November, the first was delivered to DHL on 1 December.

The A330-200P2F can carry 61 t over 4,250 nmi. Following June Flight tests and the STC in July, the first was delivered to EgyptAir Cargo on 3 August 2018.

The P2F version of the A330 retains the passenger aircraft's geometry and incorporates a powered cargo loading system to enable pallets to be moved "uphill" on the main cargo deck, and therefore does not have the distinctive nose blister, or "bulge", of the factory delivered A330-200F.

On 3 March 2022, Air Transport Services Group (ATSG), an air freighter lessor, committed to acquiring 29 Airbus A330-300 Passenger-to-Freighter (P2F) conversion slots from EFW with deliveries in the 2023 to 2027 timeframe. The aircraft will be converted mainly at EFW's facility in Dresden, Germany, and at a new conversion site in Shanghai, China.

A330-800
The Airbus A330-800 is based on the A330-200, with, cabin modifications, larger Trent 7000 engines and aerodynamic improvements. The A330-800s maiden flight took place on 6 November 2018. The first two A330-800s were delivered to their launch customer Kuwait Airways in October 2020.

A330-900
The Airbus A330-900 maintains the A330-300's fuselage dimensions with 10 more seats thanks to cabin optimisation. With modern Trent 7000 engines and redesigned winglets, it should burn 14% less fuel per seat than the A330-300 over a distance of 4000 nmi. It should travel 6550 nmi with 287 passengers in a standard configuration. The A330-900 made its maiden flight on 19 October 2017 and received its EASA type certificate on 26 September 2018; it entered service with its launch customer, TAP Air Portugal, on 15 December 2018.

BelugaXL (large cargo freighter)

Airbus started design of a replacement aircraft for the Beluga in November 2014. The BelugaXL A330-743L is based on the Airbus A330, and has 30% more space than its predecessor. Like the Beluga, the BelugaXL features an extension on its fuselage top, but can accommodate two A350 wings instead of one. The new aircraft rolled out of the assembly line on 4 January 2018, making its maiden flight on 19 July 2018. It began ferrying cargo between different Airbus factories in January 2020.

ACJ330
The A330-200 is available as an ultra-long-range Airbus Corporate Jet known as the A330-200 Prestige, with a range of 15,400 km and a capacity of 50 passengers.

ACJ330neo
A corporate jet version of the new A330neo capable of flying 25 passengers 19260 km or 21 hours, enough to fly non-stop from Europe to Australia.

Airbus A330 MRTT

The Airbus A330 MRTT is the Multi-Role Transport and Tanker (MRTT) version of the A330-200, designed for aerial refuelling and strategic transport. , approximately 60 orders had been placed for the A330 MRTT by air forces of thirteen countries.

EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45
The EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 was a proposed version of the A330 MRTT for the United States Air Force (USAF)'s KC-X aerial refuelling programme. In February 2008, the USAF selected the aircraft to replace the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker. The replacement process was mired in controversy, instances of corruption, and allegations of favouritism. In July 2010, EADS submitted a tanker bid to the USAF without Northrop Grumman as a partner. However, on 24 February 2011, the USAF picked the Boeing KC-767 proposal, later named KC-46, as the winner because of its lower cost.

Operators
, a total of 1,467 A330 family aircraft, comprising 566 A330-200s, 38 -200Fs, 729 -300s, 7 -800s and 127 -900s, are in airline service with 148 operators. The five largest operators were Delta Air Lines (69), Turkish Airlines (60), China Eastern Airlines (56), Air China (49) and Cathay Pacific (41).

By 2012, the 830 A330s in service with over 90 operators had accumulated five million revenue flights and 20 million flight hours, with a dispatch reliability above 99%. In November 2017, 1,190 were transporting passengers with 106 airlines (the top 29 operated two-thirds of the fleet), consisting of 530 -200s and 660 A330-300s, mainly high-gross-weight, with 36 original shorter-range A330-300s, half of them built since January 2010. Its average sector is 2,000 nmi; the longest flight for the -200 was 6,000 nmi, from Buenos Aires to Rome, by Aerolíneas Argentinas, and 5,000 nmi, from Paris to Reunion, by Corsair and French Blue for the -300. Of operators of at least five A330s, 17 have ordered A350-900s, 11 have ordered 787-8/9s, 13 both, 3 have ordered A330neos and 2 both A330neos and A350s; 14 haven't yet decided on a replacement. By August 2019, the A330 was operated between over 400 airports in the world, by more than 120 operators, while its average dispatch reliability was over 99% and annual utilization up to 6,000 flight hours. The 1,500th airplane, an A330-900 (A330neo), was delivered to Delta Air Lines on 21 September 2020. In June 2023, the A330 became the second most delivered wide-body airliner after the Boeing 777. In May 2024, the A330 became the second wide-body airliner after the Boeing 777 to reach 1,600 deliveries.

Orders and deliveries
, A330 family aircraft orders stood at 1,798, of which 1,605 had been delivered, excluding 2 A330-900 delivered to Air Belgium via Airbus Financial Services

 Data

Accidents and incidents
, the Airbus A330 has been involved in 46 aviation accidents and incidents, including 14 hull-losses (10 due to flight related accidents and 4 due to criminal related accidents), for a total of 339 fatalities.

Accidents
The A330's first fatal accident occurred on 30 June 1994 near Toulouse on a test flight when an Airbus-owned A330-300 crashed while simulating an engine failure on climbout, killing all seven on board. Airbus subsequently advised A330 operators to disconnect the autopilot and limit pitch attitude in the event of an engine failure at low speed.

The second fatal and deadliest accident, and first while in commercial service, occurred on 1 June 2009 when Air France Flight 447, an A330-200 registered as F-GZCP, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris with 228 people on board, crashed in the Atlantic Ocean 640 - 800 km northeast of the islands of Fernando de Noronha, with no survivors. Malfunctioning pitot tubes provided an early focus for the investigation, as the aircraft involved had Thales-built "–AA" models known to indicate faulty airspeed data during icing conditions. In July 2009, Airbus advised A330 and A340 operators to replace Thales pitots with equivalents manufactured by Goodrich. Investigators later determined that the inadequate response of the pilots to both a loss of airspeed data from malfunctioning pitot tubes and subsequent autopilot disengagement followed by incorrect reaction by the pilot flying resulted in Flight 447 entering into an aerodynamic stall.

On 12 May 2010, Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771, an A330-200 registered as 5A-ONG, crashed on approach to Tripoli International Airport, Libya, on a flight from O. R. Tambo International Airport, Johannesburg, South Africa. Of the 104 people on board, all but one nine-year-old Dutch child died. The cause of the crash was determined to be pilot error.

On 23 October 2022, Korean Air Flight 631, an Airbus A330-300 registered as HL7525, operating from Seoul to Cebu, crash landed and overshot the runway while landing in poor weather at night.

Incidents
Several in-flight shutdowns of Trent 700–powered A330-300s have occurred. On 11 November 1996, engine failure on a Cathay Pacific flight forced it back to Ho Chi Minh City. On 17 April 1997, Dragonair experienced an engine shutdown on an A330, caused by carbon clogging the oil filter. As a result, Cathay Pacific self-suspended its 120-minute ETOPS clearance. Another engine failure occurred on 6 May during climbout with a Cathay Pacific A330, due to a bearing failure in a Hispano-Suiza-built gearbox. Three days later, a Cathay Pacific A330 on climbout during a Bangkok–Hong Kong flight experienced an oil pressure drop and a resultant engine spool down, forcing a return to Bangkok. The cause was traced to metal contamination in the engine's master chip. Following a fifth engine failure on 23 May, Cathay Pacific and Dragonair voluntarily grounded their A330 fleets for two weeks, causing major disruption as Cathay's eleven A330s made up fifteen per cent of its passenger capacity. Rolls-Royce and Hispano-Suiza developed a redesigned lubrication system to fix the problem.
 * Engine related

Other engines have issues too: on 14 July 2015, an Asiana PW4000 was shut down in flight, on 15 January 2017, an Air Europa CF6 was shut down in flight, on 28 December 2017, an Aer Lingus CF6 was shut down in flight, on 18 January 2018, a Malaysia Airlines PW4000 was shut down in flight, on 13 February 2018, a Delta Air Lines PW4000 caught fire, on April 18, 2018, another Delta Air Lines PW4000 caught fire, on 29 May 2018, a Delta Air Lines PW4000 had engine vibrations, on 1 June 2018, a Qantas CF6 was shut down in flight, on 1 October 2018, a China Airlines CF6 had an engine problem, and on 5 November 2018, a Brussels Airlines PW4000 was shut down in flight.

In 2008, Air Caraïbes reported two incidents of pitot tube icing malfunctions on its A330s.
 * Flight data related

On 7 October 2008, Qantas Flight 72, an A330-300, suffered a rapid loss of altitude in two sudden uncommanded pitch-down manoeuvres while 150 km from the RAAF Learmonth air base in northwestern Australia. After declaring an emergency, the crew landed the aircraft safely at Learmonth. It was later determined that the incident, which caused 106 injuries, 14 of them serious, was the result of a design flaw of the plane's Air Data Inertial Reference Unit and a limitation of the aircraft's flight computer software.

On 24 August 2001, Air Transat Flight 236, an A330-200, developed a fuel leak over the Atlantic Ocean due to an incorrectly installed hydraulic part and was forced to glide for over 15 minutes to an emergency landing in the Azores.
 * Fuel system related

On 13 April 2010, Cathay Pacific Flight 780, an A330-300, from Surabaya Juanda International Airport to Hong Kong landed safely after contaminated fuel caused both engines to fail. Fifty-seven passengers were injured. Its two pilots received the Polaris Award from the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations for their heroism and airmanship.

On 15 March 2000, a Malaysia Airlines A330-300 suffered structural damage due to leaking oxalyl chloride, a corrosive chemical substance that had been improperly labeled before shipping. The aircraft was written off.
 * Chemical and fire related

On 27 August 2019, an Air China A330-300 at Beijing Capital International Airport caught fire while at the gate. The passengers and crew were safely evacuated. The airplane was likely damaged beyond repair.

The two hijackings involving the A330 have resulted in one fatality, namely the hijacker of Philippine Airlines Flight 812 on 25 May 2000, who jumped out of the aircraft to his death. The hijacking of Sabena Flight 689 on 13 October 2000 ended with no casualties when Spanish police took control of the aircraft. On 24 July 2001, two unoccupied SriLankan Airlines A330s were destroyed amid an attack on Bandaranaike International Airport, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. On 25 December 2009, passengers and crew subdued a man who attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear on an A330-300 operating Northwest Airlines Flight 253.
 * Hijackings and war related

On 15 July 2014, a Libyan Airlines A330 was severely damaged in the fighting in Libya and sustained bullet holes in the fuselage. On 20 July 2014, two Afriqiyah Airways Airbus A330s were hit by an RPG at Tripoli International Airport. One was completely destroyed in the ensuing fire.

On 15 April 2023, a Saudia A330 registered HZ-AQ30 was destroyed in Sudan bombings during an ongoing military coup.

Aircraft on display

 * A former Turkish Airlines A330-300 is preserved at Aircraft Museum Kathmandu in Kathmandu, Nepal. This aircraft was only eight months old when it was written off in a runway excursion at Tribhuvan International Airport. The museum is inside the aircraft, with more than 200 miniature planes inside and aviation artifacts.
 * Former Thai Airways A330-300 HS-TEF has been preserved since 2017 as the Airways Land Café at Sida, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
 * Air Diamond Cafe in Chiang Mai, Thailand uses the former Thai Airways A330-300 HS-TEG at its main premises.
 * Former Thai Airways A330-300 HS-TEM has been preserved as "Coffee War" cafe in Chonburi since 2020.

title: Airbus A330


text:
Vincent Voiture

Vincent Voiture (24 February 1597 – 26 May 1648), French Mannerist and Baroque Précieuses poet and writer of prose, was the son of a rich wine merchant of Amiens. He was introduced by a schoolfellow, the count Claude d'Avaux, to Gaston, Duke of Orléans, and accompanied him to Brussels and Lorraine on diplomatic missions.

Although a follower of the Duke of Orléans, he won the favour of Cardinal Richelieu, and was one of the earliest members of the Académie française. He also received appointments and pensions from Louis XIII and Anne of Austria.

He published nothing in book form, but his verses and his prose letters (published after his death by his nephew) were the delight of the coteries, and were copied, handed about and admired more perhaps than the work of any contemporary. He had been early introduced by Chaudebonne to the Hôtel de Rambouillet, where he became a close friend of Julie d'Angennes, the daughter of Charles d'Angennes and Catherine de Vivonne, marquis and marquise de Rambouillet. His ingenuity in providing amusement for the members of the circle ensured his popularity, which was never seriously threatened except by Antoine Godeau (nicknamed le Nain de Julie), and this rivalry ceased when Richelieu appointed Godeau bishop of Grasse. When at the desire of the duc de Montausier, nineteen poets contributed to the Guirlande de Julie, which was to decide the much-fêted Julie in favour of his suit, Voiture did not take part. The quarrel between the Uranistes and the Jobelins arose over the respective merits of a sonnet of Voiture addressed to a certain Uranie, and of another composed by Isaac de Benserade, till then unknown, on the subject of Job.

Another famous piece of his of the same kind, La Belle Matineuse, is less exquisite, but still admirable, and Voiture stands in the highest rank of writers of vers de société. His prose letters are full of lively wit, and, in some cases, as in the letter on Richelieu's policy (Letter LXXIV), show considerable political penetration. He ranks with Jean de Balzac as the chief director of the reform in French prose which accompanied that of Malherbe in French verse.

Voiture's death, on 26 May 1648, at the outbreak of the Fronde, marked the beginning of the end of the society to which he was accustomed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Vincent Voiture


text:
Paul Pellisson

Paul Pellisson (30 October 1624 – 7 February 1693) was a French author, associated with the Baroque Précieuses movement.

Pellisson was born in Béziers, of a distinguished Calvinist family. He studied law at Toulouse, and practised at the bar of Castres. Going to Paris with letters of introduction to Valentin Conrart, a fellow Calvinist, he was introduced to the members of the Académie française. Pellisson undertook to be their historian, and in 1653 published a Relation contenant l'histoire de l’Académie française. He was rewarded with a promise of the next vacant place and permission to be present at their meetings.

In 1657 Pellisson became secretary to the minister of finance, Nicolas Fouquet, but when, in 1661, Fouquet was arrested, his secretary was imprisoned in the Bastille. Pellisson had the courage to stand by his fallen patron, in whose defence he issued his celebrated Mémoire in 1661, with the title Discours au roi, par un de ses fidèles sujets sur le procès de M. de Fouquet, in which the facts in favour of Fouquet are marshalled with great skill. Another pamphlet, Seconde défense de M. Fouquet, followed.

Pellisson was released in 1666, and sought the royal favour. He became official historian to the king, and in that capacity wrote a fragmentary Histoire de Louis XIV, covering the years 1660 to 1670. In 1670 he was converted to Catholicism and obtained rich ecclesiastical preferment.

He was very intimate with Mlle de Scudéry, in whose novels he figures as Herminius and Acante. He had many friends, and Bussy-Rabutin's described him as "encore plus honnête homme que bel esprit."

title: Paul Pellisson


text:
Talk:Monarchy

Update Map
Why is Asiana the map of jarod? I think this version is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Monarchies.png

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.90.124 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

North Korea: Communist Monarchy
Perhaps North Korean should also be listed within this article hundred the heading of communist monarchy. :

"I'm a sociologist, by discipline. Or indiscipline, do I hear you sneer? True, my subject has its share of what one eminent sociologist, Garry Runciman, has called attitude and platitude. Plenty of obfuscating jargon, too. Nor is it half as trendy as when I first got hooked, back in 1968 - when I mixed it up with Marxism. These days, subjects like psychology, history and even economics (despite our present discontents) are more highly regarded than sociology.

But my trade has its uses too, as I shall now try to demonstrate. Take Kim Jong-eun, newly crowned dauphin of North Korea. A communist monarchy: that's a strange beast indeed, and a contradiction in terms. But sociology, I contend, may shed some light here. What is going on? How on earth did it come to this? And can such a peculiar system survive?

...

Communist monarchy Communist monarchy: what a grotesque paradox. Yet there is a double logic to this. First, at the end of the day who can you trust? Especially in a culture that prizes filial piety, your own family looks the best bet. Kim Jong-il certainly thinks so, promoting not only his son but his sister - Kim Kyong-hui also becomes a full Politburo member - and of course her husband Jang Song-taek, now an alternate Politburo member as well as a vice-chair of the National Defense Commission (NDC), the highest executive body of state outranking the Cabinet.

Second: In a state barely 60 years old, but preceded by centuries of Confucian monarchy and (more immediately) four decades of emperor-worship under Japanese occupation (1905-45), keeping it in the Kim family presses powerful buttons. Or to put it more sociologically, this mode of essentially patriarchal legitimation of rulers is familiar, indeed deeply ingrained.

On October 8 Yang Hyong-sop, a veteran Politburo member aged 85, told Associated Press Television News (APTN): ''Our people take pride in the fact that they are blessed with great leaders from generation to generation... Our people are honored to serve the great president Kim Il-sung and the great general Kim Jong-il. Now we also have the honor of serving young general Kim Jong-eun.''

He sounded deeply traditional: a loyal courtier to his kings. But North Korea's communist origins mean it can't admit it has become a monarchy, so this isn't quite enough. Both the ruler, and even more his successor, have to justify their rule in some other way. This is the third factor, and it takes two forms - or more precisely, stages.

The first is a cult of personality: originated by Stalin, extended by Mao, and pushed to its extremes by Kim Il-sung. Hey, if a guy claims absolute right to rule, he'd better be special. This is what the German sociologist Max Weber called charisma: a term which has entered the language in a looser sense. Or if he's not so special, you make up stories to pretend he is. These may be ludicrous, but woe betide anyone rash enough to giggle or cast aspersions.

Yet as Weber saw, as a mode of rule charisma has problems. Unlike traditional authority - a monarchy proper, for instance - charisma is vested in just one exceptional individual. What happens when they die? The challenge, in Weber's rather ugly term, is to routinize charisma."Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC) and 2012

Regardless of whether the position of leader of North Korea has effectively been passed down from father to son (although neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un have ever been formally Head of State of North Korea; (at any rate, a monarchy doesn't have to be hereditary, it can also be elective.) he constitution states that the people are sovereign (and thus the country is a republic), rather than the sovereignty being vested in the Head of State (which would make it a monarchy). That, and the fact it's called the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is absurd to call a failed republic a monarchy or even a "quasi" monarchy. This is clearly wrong. --89.204.138.237 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Interestingly enough in Footnote 2 it has been stated that North Korea is *not* a monarchy. --89.204.138.237 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Organization of "current monarchies"
I've done some CE on the "current monarchies" section, but I'm wondering where the justification is for this particular subdivision. In particular I would question the division into two sets of constitutional monarchies. Do we have a WP:RS authority for this division, or is it just something one of us made up? Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Map is wrong
On the current map New Caledonia and Vanuatu shown as constitutional monarchies instead of Tuvalu and Tonga (I think, that Tonga remains an absolute monarchy). Please somebody exchange the map. CrazyRepublican (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Monarchia stanowa" in English
Polish wiki has an article on pl:Monarchia stanowa, defined as "a type of monarchy common to the late middle ages period, characterized by the formation of distinct social classes. In particular, the classes of nobility, priesthood and to a lesser extent, townsfolk, would gain some representation in the government, and limit the rulers powers." The direct translation of "monarchia stanowa" would be "class monarchy" (stan -> (social) class in Polish), but I am not seeing anything like this in the English sources on Google Books. Any ideas? PS. On a related note, en wiki is also missing an article on the patrimonial monarchy (pl:Monarchia patrymonialna, I redirect it to patrimonialism for the time being). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Moanarchy vs. Dictatorship
From the first few paragraphs of this, there appears to be no difference beetween monarchy and dictatorship. Then come charachteristics of monarchy, none of which seem to distinguish it from other governments. Dictatorship usually has a republican government behind, but what about modern constitutional monarchy. This blurs the line beetween monarchy and dictatorship. --Questions99 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some now-existing monarchies are most certainly not dictatorships.
 * Queen Elizabeth II of England is a monarch, and she is a figurehead in the secular realm of power. She appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he in turn is the head of the Anglican Catholic Church. As monarch, she is a constitutional officer of the British state, but has no secular power, and is in fact mainly a religious leader for the recognized denomination (the UK is an officially Christian state).
 * King Juan Carlos (or King John Charles, if you wish to translate the name he assumed in office) of Spain, unlike Elizabeth II who at least has a religious investiture power, is a true figurehead. Spain is also an officially Christian state, but a Roman Catholic one rather than Anglican Catholic. The Pope assigns all other Bishops to their Dioceses ever since the Investiture Controversy back in the 1100s, and is himself elected, not appointed. This leaves the modern Monarch of Spain with no power, secular or religious, except for his symbolic significance.
 * So, Queen Elizabeth II and King Juan Carlos are by no means dictators, yet they are monarchs. I hope that answers your question. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * most monarchies throughout the ages essentially were absolutist dictatorships. Franco's rule in Spain was essentially a kingdom without a monarchy. Mussolini in Italy was prime minister under a monarch. Even the modern day constitutional monarchies are still essentially discriminatory as in that everyone from other families is barred from being head of state because that right is exclusively reserved for one family which is inherently discriminatory.

Just a few points:
 * The British Queen does indeed have some (not much) political power, i.e. residual powers as part of the royal prevogative. Also it's the Church of England, not the 'Anglican Catholic Church' she is head of. (Although the Church of England is indeed an anglican church.)
 * Spain is not officially Catholic.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Flimsy definition
"A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch).[1]

Forms of monarchy differ widely based on the level of legal autonomy the monarch holds in governance, the method of selection of the monarch, and any predetermined limits on the length of their tenure."

By this broad definition, you could argue that all heads of state are monarchs if by another name, especially with the part about "any predetermined limits on the length of their tenure," or in other words, term limits. Even without that part, though, there are many dictators in office for life who are not traditionally considered monarchs (historical examples range from Adolf Hitler to Joseph Mobutu, and currently Robert Mugabe and others; and at the time this category would have included Emperor Augustus, despite his being often thought of today as a monarch).

With the term limits part, the definition is even more problematic. For example, the President is not referred to as a monarch, and yet he is the Head of State of the USA, and he is inarguably the very personification of Article II in the country's Constitution.

So, how do we tweak the definition of a monarch so that we don't end up including these men as monarchs: Barrack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Filipe Calderon, and others; and formerly Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Mobutu, Momar Al Kadaffi, Idi Amin, Milton Obote, Manuel Noriega, and others? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say the defining characteristic of the monarch is that they inherit the office, as opposed to acquiring it through purely political means. That doesn't mean that pure primogeniture determines who the monarch will be, but it does mean that a) the monarch can only come from a select number of individuals whose ancestry and birth has placed them within the small ruling class of the country or society in question.  Even for elective monarchies (such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) the monarch was elected by the ruling class and elected from the ruling class, and access to the ruling class was determined by heredity: You could only be elected King of Poland if you were born to the right people.  In contrast, dictators aquired power solely through conquest and/or political processes; it has nothing to do with accident of birth.  -- Jayron  32  14:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, shouldn't we amend the Article definition to say that a monarch must be partially hereditary if not directly so?
 * Also, this makes Vatican City a non-monarchical dictatorship, on the grounds that there are no birth circumstance or social class qualifications to be Pope. On the contrary, any male Roman Catholic (in theory any male Christian) can be legally and validly elected Pope, although once elected he must be consecrated as a Bishop in order to serve. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that the title of the 1562-1791 Polish Commonwealth's Head of State was 'King', the sovereignty of it was considered to be vested in the szlachta, the Polish nobility (who claimed to represent the Polish nation as a whole) and not the King; whose power they severely circumscribed. For those reasons, it can be considered a republic rather than an elective monarchy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the starting definition to reflect the explicit lifetime tenure as defining element. I am aware that many autocrats rule until their death, but only monarchs and thus monarchies have this "until death" (or abdication) rule written into law. Inheritance is only an option for succession. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan
Their are two historical inaccuracies about Bhutan in the article. Firstly Bhutan is mentioned as a kingdom which had never been under European subjugation. This is false as Bhutan remained a protectorate of the British Indian Empire until 1947 and secondly Bhutan is mentioned as being a Theravada Buddhist nation whereas it is actually Vajrayana Buddhist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.63.112 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool to have a comparison of wealth between Kingdoms
Which Monarchy or Kingdom is the richest in the world? and which is the poorest? Any tally of wealth by Kingdom? CaribDigita (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rule king/queen monarch

 * rule throne king/queen candidate, there are two options:

 * only male child from the sequence; or
 * the sequence child and gender sex (from above to below)

if the children and grandchildren from the king/queen dies/divorce then sister-in-law/brother-in-law can't be a member of the royal family. Akuindo (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 * The particulars of succession varies in each monarchy depending on which laws of succession are in place there. Anyway I am not quite sure which part of this article it is that you suggest improving, you will have to be a bit more specific. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Empire of Ghana
???????????????????????

Reigning until death or abdication
The opening sentence states that a monarch reigns until death or abdication. However, the Malaysian monarchy has a term length of five years. Thunderstone99 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

North Korea is a republic; what does that have to do with anything? JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You could argue that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia is no monarch but a simple head of state, but is still elected from the federated monarchies of Malaysia, making Malaysia an odd construct of being a republic made out of monarchies, making it a monarchy afterall? Nsae Comp (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

eyg nyt   hyedyt
tt e5wwwwwwwwwww rbbdbdygggn tt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:480:5550:856C:CD67:AC88:136C (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Mon Arch
Parse the worth, into it's components, especially if you have a mind above ...

Monarchy, does NOT create My Enemy, it creates, "My Arch, and?"

Do orphans have an issue that a family man places his umbral over that what he(she) has created, maintained themselves? (Beaurocrats and social anarchist mafia do, but do you?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.122.242 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe
The map of European monarchies has two identical categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"..exercises the role of sovereignty"
This language here in the introduction is vague as to the meaning of "sovereignty, or its altogether outside of the use of the word "sovereignty" in the natural English language (i.e. not the state language of a particular government). It needs to be improved. Its in reference to the powers of the monarch. In the United States we have developed the convention of saying that a national leader excercises "executive authority," and that seems to be a natural term to use. -Inowen (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of monarchy
While it may be illegal to criticize the monarchy in certain places like Britain and Canada, its necessary that the topic have a criticism section, which will also naturally spill over into an article. In fact there appears to be a criticism of monarchy article, and so thus this article should have a section which addresses the topic and links the article. -Inowen (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Note It is not illegal to criticize the British/Canadian monarch in the United Kingdom nor in Canada. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Dude, its never been illegal to criticize the monarchy in any of the Commonwealth Realms. Australia has a referendum on it, after all

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Richard Löwenhez, Salbung zum König.jpg

Monarchy is equal with discrimination
The article fails to mention even any of the argument that the concept of monarchy is in itself discriminatory as it differentiates between families based on birth, asserting that members of one particular family are "higher", "nobler" or simply "better" than all others.

How is it not discriminatory to deny millions of people the equal right and chance to be the head of state of their country because one family was at some stage hundreds of years ago awarded the exclusive privilege usually based on centuries of oppression and tyranny (which is how "royal" families usually gained their wealth, or rather stole it).
 * Good idea. I think this would fit well somewhere in the last two paragraphs of the History section when many countries turned away from monarchism; it would make sense to include these kinds of critiques from an Enlightenment perspective of human rights.  Note, also, however, that anything added would have to include citations referencing reliable secondary sources.--MattMauler (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite
Does not disambiguate between chieftain (pre-roman), manorial system, kingdom (pre-christian dominance), Monarchy(christian monarchy), papal monarchy, constitutional monarchy (Secular), absolute monarchy (european), tzardom (absolute), Despotism, and the international equivalents or the eras they existed in and why; variation by civilization and ethnicity and why; the various constraints on each being a function of traditional laws of the region, and the military and economic and developmental differences that caused those differences in government. Why does this matter? This article is a sort of hearsay collection of complaints. Monarchy provides predictable change in power, and limits competition for power, thereby forcing people into the marketplace for survival, prosperity, and status. Most revisionist criticisms of aristocracies and monarchies are due to the land (Farming) being the only means of increasing productivity, and welfare and wars as a system of economic entrepreneurship, just as economic wars are conducted today with money and law, they did with money and arms. With europe's success and lack of stagnation like other civilizations due to distribution of power into competitors forcing a market for government. Monarchies were more tolerant of people and differences, but intolerant of use of politics or war to obtain power (unlike today). Why is it the dynastic monarchies lasted for so long and modern states so short? Why were taxes 1-3% under monarchies and 50%+ today? Why couldn't people participate in government (ignorant, illiterate, lazy, petty, superstitious on a level we can't imagine). Who fought in wars and why? (It was profitable. Piracy of the land. People volunteered enthusiastically.) Why do we call them sovereigns, yet also state every man is sovereign in our traditional law? Were monarchs and policies influential or just what we talk about when common law and custom determined people's actions far more so? Where are cites from the say, the Routledge History of Monarchy? Any work of comparative government? And the hundreds of other sources?

So the question is: is a rewrite possible? Is it worth it for me to invest time in updating it? Or is this kind of work subject to petty political infighting? -Thanks

CurtDoolittle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article could benefit from significant revisions, and we would welcome your help on this article, but I would ask for a more specific statement of the problems with the current version before saying yes to a complete re-write. Currently, the article does differentiate between constitutional and absolute monarchies, as well as comparing several different methods of succession.  Additionally, before adding some of your above claims to the article, I recommend gaining consensus (and providing sources) here on the talk page first. A "market" for government?  Monarchies more tolerant of differences? (than whom? when?)  Many of these claims would require careful citation ... And if cited and added, they wouldn't necessarily require a rewrite of the text now in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The only problem is that this an opinion, not fact. It can not be quantifiably ascertained, and that point of view could be criticized (considering most members of society never have the possibility to be head of state, or there isn't even that position as a separate office, such as in the United States). I wouldn't go around editing Wikipedia pages on the basis of opinion. It could be phrased as a question and backed up, but it is not something that in good conscience that could be presented as fact CanadianPrince (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits to lead
Nsae Comp, I recently made a relatively minor edit, removing this material from the lead because I believe that it is unnecessary and repetitive (diff here). The monarch can go by various titles, and little extra information or clarity is added if we include that their authority can be "proclaimed" and "recognized" by inhabiting various seats. It's a more complex way of saying the same thing, so both sentences were not needed. The other sentence I removed stated that monarchs can be bound by and rule over territories or people groups, just as can almost any ruler, so it did not seem significant. Additionally, the example title given "King of the Belgians" is functionally no different from most other monarchs. All of this, besides the over-linking of words, adds unnecessary complexity to the lead. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, as we seem to be the most frequent and consistent editors on the page recently. However, it seems as though we have very different standards for the type of information that should be in the lead. Perhaps a third opinion would help?--MattMauler (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the elaborate explanation. I think your arguments are fine, even if I clearly have a different approach. A third opinion is allways good, but I have no problem with your edit thanks to your elaboration. All the best. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Regarding the other edit of you, moving the remark about "dynastic periode", this was at the end of the sentance because also elective monarchies can build dynastic periodes. But of course it is mostly in the context of hereditary monarchies. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Last but not least, maybe there is a spot in the article where the taken out senances can be of use? Obviously I find it important to note somewhere what the senances say about the nuances of legitimation of monarchs through insignia, seats or connection to territory or people. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps somewhere under the "role of the monarch"? The territory vs. people could go there, maybe.  The problem with the "insignia" or seats information is that it's often unclear whether these insignia or seats have an important impact on the role of the monarch.  Again, if it goes in, it should be clear to the reader how the different "seats" are functionally different rather than mostly being different terminology (and it would also have to be supported by sources, of course).--MattMauler (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Different versions of the lead: "A monarchy is a political system in which supreme authority is vested in a monarch who functions as head of state and who normally ascedes to the position by heredity. The system's political legitimacy and legal authority exercised by the monarch may differ from varying levels of constitutionally constrained (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy). However, common across monarchical systems are the monarch as the legal fount of executive, legislative and judicial power."

"A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The legitimation and governing power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to restricted (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), combining executive, legislative and judicial power."

I argue for the latter because: "Political system" is broader than "form of government", a monarchy can be within a larger political system and does not need to be supreme or hereditary, good example here is Malaysia. Further mention of heredity is later in next paragraph and wording is longer. The last aspects are also not common, only historically, because legaly in the today common form, a constitutional monarchy, these powers are given by the constitution contracting subjects. I think the lead needs to consider the many contemporary and historic monarchies that are subnational and mostly symbolic, since they outnumber the top layer monarchies of nations and independent states. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidenced?
I disagree with your edit here, which I had removed because it seemed unsourced and even if it was sourced it is truly disputed.

My edit here shows Sudanic people already had kings way before that. There is Clovis culture which is way older than these examples and shows clear evidence of monarchy before these examples. Other than these examples, you will see Cretan civilization, who is just as old as Egyptian but the script hasn't been deciphered.

I can go on with these examples but I believe this is enough to remove that disputed part again. Thanks ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I think this article should not be a competition between who was the first, better to mention a few cultures who were undoubtedly part of the beginnings. The Sumerian culture is one the generally accepted ones, and yes I checked, the only verifiable king is the one mentioned, however the Sumerian King list goes back much further, indeed backed by written evidence. So the first pharagraph of the history sections should not be removed, they have verified entities. The rest of your edits you may put back. I Wish You A Happy New Year!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

In defense of recently taken out sentences from lead
Hi I had this recently reintroduced after being taken out without proper explaination. Now it got again taken out for reasons of "unneeded" and "wordy". Well I want to defend the content of it (not the wording). So I want to put this up for discussion. I argue for thos two sentences because they are in my opinion quite crucial to understand the concept. The first one and a half sentences are about the special nature of monarchies compared to the modern nation state since monarchies can come into being not only as an unitarian or nation state, but also as a network of polities best illustrated by a personal union, but more frequently in history as a federation or system of vassalage. If people want to understand monarchies throughout history, and thats when they were big, then they need to understand this dimension. The second excerpt is underlining the crucial shift and conceptual difference that defines our modern world of nation states, which chose mostly the concept of republic.

Nsae Comp (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) PS: Previously the first part was even longer, elaborting in more detail the first issue with following sentences. These sentences had been cut because they were touched upon particularly by the now taken out sentences. The older sentences are for illustration and need not be reintroduces if not deemed useful. "Its authorities are proclaimed and recognized through the different seats, insignia and titles that a monarch can occupy and be invested with." & [Monarcies] "can be bound to territories (e.g., the King of Norway) and peoples (e.g., the King of the Belgians)." Nsae Comp (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we make this work? Nsae Comp (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) How is the first bit more relevant to monarchies than to other forms of government? Republics can also come into being as unitary states or as more complicated agglomerations. 2)  the bit about historical commonality is already in the article. What does the sentence about republics add to this? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 * ad 1) well I can see what you mean, but its just a problem of focus. To address this we could write something like "A monarchy has the capacity to form polities through personal relations to the monarch. Beside the common organization of states as unitarian or federated states, monarchies can also and particularly become polities through personal union and vassalege."
 * ad 2) the sentence about republic(-anism) puts monarchies in political context, importantly since most people live in republics and they are products and even named to signal non-monarchic. Besides its half a sentence. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the text this time, but I agree with Khajidha's critiques. I also do not see exactly how your comment here addresses them.  The fact that monarchies can exist in these different forms does not seem essential for the lead and makes it more confusing.  Most readers are not going to know what it means by "polities" being "formed" "through personal relations to the monarch." It's not untrue, it's just that the language is very technical and it's still kind of vague.  I understand how the republic ideas could be lead-relevant, although I am not sure what you mean in your comment immediately above.  The part I am hesitant to add would be that republic is "opposite" of monarchy, as if it is a binary choice or a spectrum, where in fact there are many more varieties of government that aren't plotted on that bi-polar model, right?  If there are sources that use the exact word "opposite," then I could be convinced.--MattMauler (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * ad 1) Ill try another wording that is less convaluted and more focused on the special dimension of monarchies (e.g. Personenverbandsstaat):"The focus of monarchies on the monarch, particularly its relations, has allowed monarchies to become complex systems of personal union, federation or vassalage."
 * ad 2) Well I know the whole thing with the history of the concept of republic is contradicting, but republic is used by many states to denote the "absence" of a monarchy. But how about this:"Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, when republics were established to abolish monarchies (see republicanism), replacing them as the dominant form of government." Nsae Comp (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would insert this, if no more objections? Nsae Comp (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Republics can also be complex systems. 2) Your proposed sentence implies that republics did not exist until the 20th century. So, no, do not insert this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

1) that statement does not refer remotely to republics. But ok, lets reword:"Monarchies can claim realms through personal association of lands and peoples to the monarch, allowing personal association as personal union, federation or vassalage." as 2) addressing the raised issue:"Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, when new republics were established with the purpose of abolishing monarchies (see republicanism), replacing them as the dominant form of government." ... if you have a better wording, please share it, thx. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) All this is saying is that the monarch (as the representative of the state) determines how the state relates to other states. Is that really necessary to spell out? 2) "Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, at which time republics had become more common." But the only part that is really relevant to this article is that "Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I am sorry but you seem to not get what I am saying. 1) the sentence does not say anything about foreign policy/other states, it talkes about how the state is constituted/assembled, which is as crucial as it is for democracies to be constituted through the identification of a populace/voting citizens. Please anyone? My english cant be that bad.
 * ad 2) no my whole argument is that it is important to draw a connection to the contemporarily dominant form of government, especially because it is used as the concept to abolish monarchies, put in place instead of monarchy. I am contextualizing, not just mentioning historic conditions as in the previous dominance of monarchies. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The further down mentioned Commonwealth is the best example why both points are important: the Commonwealth is an association of realms under a crown/monarch, exactly what I try to state in 1) ... and calls in the Commonwealth realms for a republic are the common proposal against the monarchy (see the reference that states that in the beginning of its own argument). Nsae Comp (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) A republic could conceivably have the same head of state as another republic, just as the same person could be monarch of two separate realms (personal union). And a republic could have another republic that is subservient to it (vassalage). The territories of the United States might approach that situation. Or perhaps the relationship between Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands and the United States. Even if neither of those quite fit, something equivalent to vassalage is possible with republics as well as with monarchies. The only difference with a monarchy is that the "state" is a person. 2) Then I propose that you use the wording: "Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, by which time republics had replaced many monarchies." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 * 2) thanks & added; ad 1) if you argue like this then allmost no element of monarchies or republics are relevant because they are present in both, hell even communism can have monarchic elements like in NKorea, though the elements are differently crucial for the different systems and thats my argument. Yes republics can have puppet states or colonies (not precicely vassals though, or especially fiefs) but it is not about comparing monarchies with republics (the sentence about republics further below has nothing to do with this). Monarchies have historically formed special polities that republics mostly havnt, republics havnt formed states out of alliegence to a person, such as in states out of personal union; best example Spain. Just because Andorra has the french president as protector doesnt invalidate that monarchies had this kind of association as one of its main modus operandi, republics do this only through colonization etc. and dont associate states through sharing a president, yet again as evident with Andorra, Andorra is not a part of the French republic, its more a statement about the monarchic elements of Andorra. But enough of the missplaced comparison with republics. As I said the main point is to elaborate that monarchies do often form states through personal association, constituted either as federations, through personal union or vassalage. Maybe it helps, to connect it with feudalism, a very monarchic system. But I have favoured just listing vassalage, because feudalism is a rather European system and vassalage is more generally applicable. I hope I could flash out what I mean and find a text that works for everyone. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok how about this, turning it around, making it not a statement about federations etc, making it clear that federations etc are not a speciality of monarchies, but rather how they come to be:"Monarchies can form federations, personal unions and realms with vassals through personal association with the monarch." Nsae Comp (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See, now that makes sense. I still feel it isn't strictly necessary to state, because we have already established that the monarch embodies the state in his/her person, but will not object to making it explicit. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am glad we found something that works for both. I integrated it now and I hope that how I (re-) integrated it in the remained text is okay and not sabutaging what you saw that works for you? I originally intended the titles not as a list, but to show why monarchs have different titles and why monarchies can be a weird conglomerate of territories, particularly in Europe and therefore the colonial world. As I said this is all a hint to the complexity of mostly (and importantly the contemporary) the British/Commonwealth Crown, and how its relations can be understood, e.g. historically the best example is how Queen Victoria could also be Empress. So its mostly about feudalism and other political constructs like personal union. I am open for more discussion, but otherwise this is closed for me. Thank you for the constructive work. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology
— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monarchy