What would you call a monarchist government where multiple families rules in turns?
What would you call a monarchist government where multiple families rules in turns?
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.
Perhaps a Rotational Monarchy?
29Thanks for the article. Very useful.
4
Musical heirs.
17Sounds a bit like Malaysia, where the “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong [the constitutional monarch] is elected by the Conference of Rulers, comprising the nine rulers of the Malay states, with the office de facto rotated between them, making Malaysia one of the world's few elective monarchies.”
11One of the other elected monarch in practice today is the Pope, who is elected by the cardinals in Vatican City.
1
As a classification I think I would call it a Monarchic Oligarchy, or maybe a Cyclical Monarchic Oligarchy, but maybe as a more common term I would say something like the Council of Monarchy or something along those lines.
8Look at historical examples like the Serene Republic of Venice.
Basically you have an oligopoly that controls the levers of power and elects one of their own to be the leader.
Also read up on selectorate theory. There's a good book called The Dictator's Handbook that goes into detail, and for a shorter way to consume this info you can watch the YouTube video Rules for Rulers which is based on the same book.
All governments are nested resources distribution streams. Resources flow up to the decision maker, which then distributes resources back down the chain to buy loyalty to maintain power. Regimes change when one side or the other experiences a major disruption.
7Round-Robin Royalty
7Sounds like an aristocratic oligarchy to me.
5Aristocracy
Could be a Plutocracy
Could be Nepotocracy
Personally, I would avoid using the term oligarchy because it has become something of a trend term used as a negative label in US political culture and synonymous with Russian (self described) backwardness and corruption.
I would write in a nod to how humans usually dilute themselves in their political labels and oversimplified ideology. No one calls themselves what they are directly. Like I default assume every monarch believes in their own fantasy meritocracy.
The concept you described could hold parallels to the papal conclave and election process. I would use this as a loose framework to make the ideas relatable.
It could also be a Magocracy depending on the fantasy.
4I would call it a Dynasty.
3Was there some ancient Dynasty that worked like this?
1Well point of fact, yes, look at Chinese history. Chinese history is often summed up as being the "Dynastic Cycle." A dynasty would be generations of a single family ruling over a population.
1
Don’t have any extra suggestions, rotational monarchy that was mentioned in another comment sounds good to me.
Just wanted to say that I’m intrigued by your story setup :)
3Personally I'd call it that system the vampires used in Underworld, but I'm not that sophisticated. I'd also be tempted to call it Musical Thrones.
3Musical Thrones.
Song of Ice and Fire: A Game of Musical Thrones.
3
A recipe for frequent civil wars
2Also consider asking at https://lemmy.world/c/worldbuilding !
2Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !worldbuilding@lemmy.world
6
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.
1coming 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.
3Is the monarch required to be sacrificed or put in harms was 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.
1
Permanently Deleted
2The 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).
2
Sounds similar to how the monarch of Malaysia is chosen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Malaysian_thrones
The next national ruler is chosen from the nine hereditary state sultans. It's technically an elective monarchy, but there is a conventional rotation order among the states.
1