this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
46 points (96.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43760 readers
1099 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
46
What would you call a monarchist government where multiple families rules in turns? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm making a fantasy novel. In this one there is a monarchy system, where 4 families rule in turns. After the current monarch dies, the next family in the circle most present an heir from their family to ruse the nation until they die and then the next family takes the throne.

What would you call this government model? Oligarchic monarchy? Poli-Monarchy? Help me with some suggestions. I'm also not sure if this has happened in the history, I can't find anything about it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

So a monarch that can't appoint their own heir really isn't much of a monarch. The point of being a monarch is not being beholden to any rules.

This is just an oligarchy with rules that don't benefit 3/4th of the participants--which is as odd as it sounds.

After all, the point of 4-5 year terms in modern democracies is that you don't have to wait your whole life to take over.

It's an interesting concept, but coming to this arangement--and maintaining it in perpetuity--must have been an extremely extrordinary set of circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The point of being a monarch is not being beholden to any rules.

Not really. Absolute monarchy is not the only kind of monarchy. There are also constitutional monarchies and various in-between. Even absolute monarchies usually are defined by some rules (e.g. succession of power in hereditary monarchies).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

coming to this arangemen–and maintaining it in perpetuity–must have been an extremely extrordinary set of circumstances.

It was. I don't want to spoil my own lore, but this is the solution they found to prevent mutual extermination through civil wars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Is the monarch required to be sacrificed every so often?

That would kinda mimic the Aztec Festival of Toxcatl, where an impersonator of the god Tezcatlipoca was sacrificed every year after being treated like a god for the year. The god-man was usually selected from royal families. He had religous function and was provided for in specific ways (eg a harem) but he wasn't a monarch.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You may want to read up about the Roman Empire's experiment with tetrarchy (rule by four emperors), which was in part an attempt to prevent civil wars.