You're viewing a single thread.
You invented a monarchy!
Only if her children inherit the crown. Otherwise it's more like a benevolent dictatorship.
That's a hereditary system. Historically monarchy were hereditary and life long, but succession can be by the will of the previous monarch, appointed, or even democratically elected.
Monarchy really only means that's there's one person at the top of a hierarchy. There can be few or many people below dealing with the actual work, and the responsibility of the system can be outlined by a constitution or absolute.
Most monarchies can behave as a dictatorship if the monarch acts as a dictator. Monarchy and Dictatorship are two terms for describing autocracies, and there's a lot of overlap between the two, but neither require or disallow hereditary succession, although monarchies usually end up with it.
By that definition isn't a presidency a monarchy?
Depends on the rest of the systems surrounding the president. The US president, for example, has some power to do things unilaterally, but much of what a president does must be approved by other branches of the government to take effect. In that sense, the president isn't the sole person at the top of the hierarchy, there's a few bodies that that power is split between.
In addition to the other comment, company presidents are usually considered lower rank than CEOs, but also often don't answer directly to them.
A president usually presides over a group, like a board or a council, without direct power over technically lower rank individuals. If a president started micromanaging the cleaning staff, they'd probably be fired.
That being said, company structure varies wildly, and there are definitely company presidents that act more like kings and dictators. It's just a title after all, no one will arrest you if it's inaccurate.
Then what is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship?
Exactly as your other comment finds, monarchies can be dictatorships if the monarch really takes control. The typical method of control tends to be different though, with monarcies often using traditional power (such as heredity and religion) and dictatorships usually being the result of military force (coups and conquerings).
I think the more useable difference is that a monarchy is a system ruled by a single person, while a dictatorship is a single person ruling. It depends on whether we're talking about an existing system of hierarchy or a person at the top; a leader vs, well, a dictator.
It's not common, but I'd bet a dictatorship that lasts long enough will become a monarchy or institue some form of oligarchy, while a monarchy could become a dictatorship without changing much; maybe reverting with the dictators passing or simply collapsing.
I think an extremely simplified and easy way to put it is. A absolute monarchy is a monarchy until an asshole gets in charge, then its a dictatorship with a monarch as the leader.
Well I was curious and did a little reading. It seems mostly in name. Though Monarchies tend to have a dive right component where Dictatorships seem to more often arise from a coup d'etat.
I live in a monarchy (Sweden) but the King does not control the country, and there's no religious component to his position. I would not consider us a dictatorship.
Also as with most monarchs these days. They are no longer the seat of political power. I don't think most people would consider Sweden to be ruled by a monarch.
Maybe the difference is parliament. A dictatorship will have advisors and may delegate limited control to other entities however they are the 'final word' and the only opinion that cannot be circumvented. Traditional monarchies would have also been dictatorships. Modern monarchies delegate significant power to parliament in manners that can't be circumvented by their own will. So I'd say that the difference between a modern monarchy and a dictatorship is a democratically elected parliament that has power beyond the will of the monarch.
Would work until she died.
Only 9-5 though.
But it would be with service and devotion.