Yeah, the Western Europeans have rules for this sort of thing & have had for ages. It’s not like a monarch has never died childless before.
Napoleon III called himself Emperor, and that was from 1851 to 1870. If he hadnt been militarily defeated, he might very well have died an Emperor. His sucession wouldnt have been easy though.
Assad generally has the assent of the populace. There’s no real movement to overthrow him.
The Gandhis were not dictators, other than Indira (and even that was a temporary state of affairs). They were democratically elected. You wouldn’t call GWB a dictator just because he got where he did because of who his father was, would you?
Sure it does. Or so the people were led to believe, at any rate.
A monarch’s main source of suasion is his Divine Right, something no dictator can really claim. Regicide is a major taboo in every country with a monarch, whereas dictatorcide is the usual exit plan for a dictator. To paraphrase Richard Harris in Unforgiven, why not shoot a dictator?
Other examples of the OP description: Cambodia, Bulgaria, Iran, Austria and Hungary.
Whether you’re a king or a dictator, you’re in exactly the same boat: YOU assert that you have absolute authority over your nation, and (tacitly or explicitly) threaten to harm anyone who questions your claim to power.
If any kind of movement arises to oust you from power, you have to crush it. You may or may not have the forces at your disposal to crush the rebels. If you don’t, they capture and kill/imprison you or force you to flee for your life.
A dictator enjoys no advantage over a king. If anything, the king is likely to have SOME kind of emotional bond with his subjects that the dictator doesn’t have, and which would make a large-scale insurrection less likely.
I think perhaps the advantage of being a dictator is that you have no illusions that the populace loves you, and you are on your toes, at least setting out a really big propaganda campaign to get people to like you. I at least don’t think of a king as someone who has to take active control over all communications, like Kim Jung Il did.
I am absolutely freaked by this, but rarely have I seen so much nonsense mixed with so much wisdom as on this thread. I want to post something, but I’m not even sure where to begin. I will pass over most of it and say only this:
-
Dictators have less need to respect tradition. Kings always have certian limits, and those who violate them destroy their own monarchies, or at least their dynasty.
-
Kings gather a lot more personal respect for the office. Monarchy being, in an unusual way, the ultimate Democracy, wherein anyone can rule be he smart or stupid if he happens to be born to the right family.
-
Neither MUST assert complete authority, but in practice Dictators do and Kings do not.
-
Therefore: There is little upside for a Monarch to claim Dictatorship. He would break the bonds which tie him to his subjects/citizens as the embodiment of the people, while his gains in power would be risky and likely to get him killed.
I agree with Mr. Bandit. Many Monarchies were forms of democracy, though only the elite could vote. They tended to choose a strong charismatic warrior initially and later, to foster a stability which would benefit their own property claims, they continued to “choose” the dynastic heirs. In many cases the King, out of respect for his long-dead ancestors who were Kings, and unborn descendants who were to become Kings, would avoid the excesses of a usurping dictator.
According to some commentators the Donation of Constantine represented a major change in Europe’s monarchies. The King of the French (chosen representative of the French people) become the King of France (God’s chosen tenant over a piece of real estate). It would be interesting to hear Doper’s views on the (forged!) “Donation.”
I recall an anecdote of a Napoleonic officer and/or noble, scorned by an ancient regime aristo: “You have no ancestors!” The parvenu replied: " Look at me! I am an ancestor!"
For a brief period in his reign, Alexander I of Yugoslavia did declare a dictatorship. This was also when the country “Yugoslavia” was officially created. Prior to that it was officially called “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” (although people generally referred to it as Yugoslavia)
Sort of a, “Dammit, if you people can’t get along, you’re all grounded!!!”
(Interesting tidbit: as a young man, Alexander was close to the Russian Imperial family and actually had hoped to marry the Tsar’s oldest daughter, Grand Duchess Olga.)
And, interestingly enough, his second son is now arguably being groomed for the Presidency: Gamal Mubarak - Wikipedia.
For another national leader who caught the Royalty bug, see Zog of Albania (long beloved of Monty Python fans), who was PM and President before becoming King in 1928: Zog I of Albania - Wikipedia
Within living memory, the Iranian monarchy reinvented itself as a dictatorship quite effectively (for a time).