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.

  •  flipht   ( @flipht@kbin.social ) 
    3•1 year ago

    Look 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.

  •  s_s   ( @s_s@lemmy.one ) 
    3•1 year ago

    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.

    •  GeneralRetreat   ( @GeneralRetreat@beehaw.org ) 
      1•1 year ago

      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.

      I wouldn’t really agree, in the sense that there are historically a lot of different constitutional forms that monarchies have taken - even in Europe alone.

      Absolute monarchs were (nominally) holders of absolute authority through the ‘divine right of kings’. These are French or Russian absolutist models, although clearly the monarchs in these systems are still subject to limitations (if not laws) unless they want to end up like the… Well, French and Russian monarchies.

      Various other constitutional monarchs were subject to limitations on their power, or power sharing with other institutions (Britain). Some models even remove the right to appoint an heir and instead had separate electoral customs for appointing a new monarch (Holy Roman Empire).

      The situation that OP is describing is weird, but I guess also not unheard of. The closest I can think of would be the ducal city states of Italy, particularly Venice.

      There, a doge was elected for life by the ruling families. This wasn’t really a monarch / king, either - they were technically republics that explicitly prevented the doge from naming their own successors to prevent the establishment of monarchal dynasties. The families in control were typically a very small circle, so you could theoretically end up with a three way power sharing cycle by accident.