Unsustainibility in Fantasy Monarchies

But these monarchs are still pretty much rois et reines fainéants most of the time.

Another case of premodern ceremonial monarchy was in Japan during the Shogun era (1185 - 1868 CE). The Shogun was the supreme military commander and effective ruler, while the Emperor was a mostly ceremonial monarch. After a period of greater activism as a ruler, the Japanese Emperor became a mostly-ceremonial monarch again after World War II, a monarch like the monarchs of Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

In the past, monarchies have continued despite some monarchs being very bad. Monarchs like Roman Emperors Commodus and Elagabalus. Their successors both became emperors, like the successors of other emperors who were assassinated, as those two were.

Helix said:

Just a reminder that, along with Commonwealth countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are also constitutional monarchies. They seem to be doing quite well.

Also that England had a bit of a contretemps in the mid-1600s over the role of the monarchy in government. Mind you, it took another few decades, foreign intervention and another revolution to get it all sorted out.

Click to expand...

One thing I find interesting is the fact that we hear a lot about Queen Elizabeth and her royal family in the news here in the US. We get serious news stories from time to time about the British monarch and her grandchildren, but it's mostly human interest stuff about royal engagements and weddings, babies, Kate's morning sickness, and occasionally, someone's bad behavior (like when Prince Harry wore that Nazi costume to a party, or when Charles was cheating on Diana). We hear so little about the monarchs of other European countries--Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark etc.--that most Americans don't even know they exist.

Why is that? Is it because Americans are simply more interested in all things British, or is it because the royalty of other European countries are more private and restrained, so they're almost never in the news, even in their home countries?

I used to think that there was one thing that united all Americans, in spite of their political differences: a strong opposition to having anything that resembled a monarchy here in the US. Now I'm not so sure if that's even true. I've run across occasional Americans online who seem to want a king here in the US (usually in the context of being very religious and thinking an absolute ruler would do a better job of enforcing theocratic laws), but less overtly, there seems to be a sense in some circles that our chief executive should have more unfettered power.

lpetrich said:

But these monarchies are purely ceremonial ones, and not activist ones, for lack of a better word. So for the most part, these are monarchies only in name, and they function almost identical to "true" republics. So they might be called quasi-republican monarchies.

Click to expand...

Do not equate constitutional monarchies to ceremonial ones. Just because monarchs don't appear involved in the running of their countries or choose not to, doesn't mean they can't or won't. I daresay in the EU only Sweden is currently a true ceremonial monarchy. There are less of them then you'd think.

Belgium has a constitutional monarch but NOT a ceremonial one. While the idea of a ceremonial monarchy has been floated around more than once in recent years, it has not passed in law, nor in practise. So among other things, the king still needs to sign laws for them to go in effect. It may sound trivial but this very thing actually caused a considerable crisis in the '90s when our then-king Boudewijn would not sign the abortion-law for religious reasons. And there was quite a bit of legal wrangling involved to get the matter resolved.

The king is also involved in the process of getting a government together after an election. The current King Filip has in the past insisted on his role there, especially when the regional politics are at odds. And while he does appear on the outside as a more hands-off king, make no mistake, it's a choice he gets to make.

The British monarchy obstinately has a veto power and Parliament is obstinately formed by their "consent" but most of the Brits I've talked to (particularly in the context of current events) are insistent that if the monarch ever tried to execute those powers to control politics in this era it would be the end of the British monarchy. The most power they can be said to have now is an advisory role, but functionally they are treading really close to the ceremonial end of things as long as they are essentially a rubber stamp for Parliament.

themindstream said:

The British monarchy obstinately has a veto power and Parliament is obstinately formed by their "consent" but most of the Brits I've talked to (particularly in the context of current events) are insistent that if the monarch ever tried to execute those powers to control politics in this era it would be the end of the British monarchy. The most power they can be said to have now is an advisory role, but functionally they are treading really close to the ceremonial end of things as long as they are essentially a rubber stamp for Parliament.

Click to expand...

In 1975, the role of Her Maj's representative in Australia was also considered ceremonial.

Helix said:

In 1975, the role of Her Maj's representative in Australia was also considered ceremonial.

Click to expand...

And that didn't end well.

From a storytelling point of view, monarchies can be a fantastic spark for conflict, even if the actual notion of governance is not deeply examined by the text, whether this is by committing acts of horror, starting a war, kidnapping a princess (or a prince for that matter!), declaring what modern readers would consider a positive change and the ripples reflecting out from that depending on the people's willingness to accept said change, dying and sparking a succession crisis, etc. The concept of absolute power can also have other characters strive towards it, sparking off other conflicts. And then there's the magical element. Cosmic agreements with elemental forces to protect one's kingdom are often easier to keep within a bloodline.

There are, of course, ways to explore monarchies beyond the traditional male primogeniture and Salic law. The system of tanistry depends on a monarchy where a king chooses his successors. The Holy Roman Empire had electors who could elect the new monarch.

I have several stories featuring monarchies, mostly because I enjoy the glamour (it's probably telling that my biggest writing projects are fantasy and Regency romances). However, monarchies can also be good for exploring concepts of abuses of power, the burdens of rule, and even the dangers of selfishness in rulers. In my biggest world, Middangard, the four stories that kicked off the world centre around the concept of Cadaln being in danger from darkness. This is human darkness, brought about by the Cyngor - essentially a high council - who have kept the king ignorant of the true state of his kingdom after a series of assassination attempts necessitated his going into hiding. As I've progressed with the world-building, this went from a few simple assassination attempts to a poisoning that killed the king's second child in the womb (by the mad monarch of another kingdom - he eventually helps start a war that his daughter ends up having to resolve and ultimately leads to his kingdom's absorption by another power, although his bloodline lives through his daughter's marriage to king of said other kingdom), assassination attempts on his son, and even the eventual murder of his queen in their 'safe' stronghold. While some threats are real, the power some members of the Cyngor acquired during King Harailt's seclusion led them to exaggerate the threat, ultimately keeping him and his increasingly frustrated son closeted away until the start of the quartet (specifically Crisiant's novel). While Crisiant's novel deals with the personal elements of this, both through their journey to the seat of power in Cadaln and Harailt and Connor's reactions to it, the other novels are designed to consider the further implications of it - one of the lines I want to echo through all four is "King or Cyngor? Make your choice." Thus the conflict of a government they cannot be certain is actually relaying their king's commands, versus a king some are saying has been bewitched and virtually abandoned them. Part of this stems from Harailt's original status as a second son - he did not grow up anticipating kingship, and therefore wasn't sufficiently trained up to it, and was possibly a little too trusting of his predecessors' Cyngors. This ultimately leads to Harailt's unhappy discovery of having failed his people, and his son Connor's need to fix those mistakes.

In another story, a very unfortunate king loses all his children, grandchildren, brothers, nieces and nephews, and is left with second-cousins as heir. Some other second-cousins decide to take advantage and strike at their competitors, and even some the next level down the line. This proves very stupid - they leave someone with a better claim alive, and the survivor of the third-cousin they attack is the thirty-six-year-old you-just-made-me-lord-and-a-widower. He leads a very brutal campaign against them that earns the name 'the Bloody.' He ends up king when the better-claim dies without children, and unhappily accepts. Since this is a portal fantasy exploiting concepts of the 'return to childhood' element (and this technically takes place at the end of the first novel/between first and second), what then happens is his wife - a thirty-year-old who, thanks to a botched spell and some lucky genes, ended up forced back into her ten-year-old body in another world instead of wiped out of history and her children with her - returns to that world at twenty-four - but it's been far longer, and now her eldest son is the same age as her father and she gets to witness the burden of kingship upon him. (At least that's the idea, I've stalled at the moment of her, her grandson, and all the loot she could afford and fit into nine square metres arriving in Aglan. Partially because I really ought to write the story of her and her brother growing up in Aglan returning home first.)

Of course, back in Middangard, I also have a Helen of Troy-style kidnapping and war (and it's definitely kidnapping) in order to specifically explore the impact on people after the war is won. I'm actually a big fan of 'rebuilding the world/our lives after a massive change,' as well as lords and ladies, so this might be why I quite like monarchies.

I've probably explained in far too much detail, but my simple point is that monarchies can make an extremely convenient storytelling tool. I'm also a little bit tired of people going 'but in real life!' as a complaint, because the whole point of fantasy stories is that they're that: fantasies. While I love new envisionings and concepts and examinations of the fallout of changes, I do get frustrated with people who complain that things didn't/don't work like that, because that's usually the point.

And as my last point: Rome started out as a Republic, but a Tyrant or Dictator (I can't remember which) was, if I recall correctly, someone who could be appointed in troubled times to get everything sorted and was then expected to hand back power at the end. (Tyrant might be Greek - I could be getting my concepts mixed up.) Also, one could argue that by assassinating Julius Caesar because they were worried he was going to declare himself Emperor, the conspirators may have actually paved the way for Augustus to do just that, given the chaos that followed.

I'm afraid I'd see a story with a large, complex society that didn't "forcefully concentrate power into a few" somewhat less believable than elves and portals. Because people want power. How are you going to *stop* that from happening? Monarchy was an attempt to at least legitimize power transfers, so societies didn't exist in a constant state of civil war.

Democracies are fragile things, easily broken if a large majority of people aren't willing to uphold them, and constantly under threat of leaders who promise "support me and we'll never be out of power again." (ref: Oh, about everything happening in the US today). One could say that both democracy and monarchy are humanity's attempt to keep pure concentrated power out of the hands of those who covet it for its own sake, because that's where power naturally gravitates.

Separation of powers, a strong set of systemic checks and people who care enough to enforce them goes a long way toward slowing the tendency to concentrate power. They are not invincible but they are good at resisting assault, containing some of the damage and slowing a would-be autocrat down hopefully long enough for them to be delt with. That's also a lesson that can be taken from current US politics.