Custodian of the Realm

How possible would it be to get a politically stable Head of State who is considered the guardian/custodian/protector/regent of a Kingdom rather than being turned into the Head of State of a republic?

That is, the State is definitely a Kingdom but there is a permanent absence of a King or Queen and the Regency is not considered inheritable.
 
Might the Governors-general of the Commonwealth Realms be what you're thinking of?
Also, I think Hungary had something of that sort in the interwar years.
 
I'm not really sure how you have that go on for a really long time, I mean either a new Monarch is going to be put in place or the state will create laws formally instituting the new republican nature of the government.

The closest thing I could think of would be a case where the 'King' is a religious figure who's long since died and thus a Regent, vetted by the religious authorities is appointed to act in said figures place, or, in other words, the Papacy.
 
Might the Governors-general of the Commonwealth Realms be what you're thinking of?
Sort of but there is still a King/Queen they are representing and the aim is not to have them.

Also, I think Hungary had something of that sort in the interwar years.

That would be Miklos Horthy which partially led to me asking this question.
The aim is to have a permanent Regent of the Kingdom rather than a stepping stone to a President of the Republic or back to Monarch of the Kingdom
 
I'm not really sure how you have that go on for a really long time, I mean either a new Monarch is going to be put in place or the state will create laws formally instituting the new republican nature of the government.

The closest thing I could think of would be a case where the 'King' is a religious figure who's long since died and thus a Regent, vetted by the religious authorities is appointed to act in said figures place, or, in other words, the Papacy.

Perhaps where explicit republics are seen as tyrannical or anti-people or something?
I can agree that religious authority would (at least initially) be a important force of approval/assent
 
How possible would it be to get a politically stable Head of State who is considered the guardian/custodian/protector/regent of a Kingdom rather than being turned into the Head of State of a republic?

That is, the State is definitely a Kingdom but there is a permanent absence of a King or Queen and the Regency is not considered inheritable.

If you have a permanent absence of a King or Queen then surely its not a Kingdom?

Regents would only ever hold their position until a suitable person could take the throne. Either they acted as proxy for a King/Queen or took the place until a young King/Queen came of age.

If no King or Queen is ever forthcoming then the nobles will either install a new House of Royalty or power will devolve into a Commonwealth or Republic with leaders elected.

You can't have a Kingdom without a King or Queen either installed or in-waiting.
 
I don't think this is so impossible. The example that springs to mind first is Francoist Spain, where a traditionalist dictator used royalism for the sake of legitimacy and traditionalist credentials but refused to actually crown a monarch who might challenge his own power. If you create a scenario where powers much more conservative than OTL's (I mean traditional conservatives, not the bizarre modern-day parlance where classical liberals are called conservatives) are common, that shouldn't be too hard. If the Kaiserreich wins the First World War, that should suffice to create such an environment of conservatism in most of Europe; give it some socialist or republican unrest that deposes monarchies in some states and then have traditionalist dictators (perhaps backed by Germany as a 'lesser of two evils' thing) rise to power in many formerly republican states, and they might act as Franco did, officially restoring monarchy but not actually crowning a rightful monarch.
 
If you have a permanent absence of a King or Queen then surely its not a Kingdom?

Regents would only ever hold their position until a suitable person could take the throne. Either they acted as proxy for a King/Queen or took the place until a young King/Queen came of age.

If no King or Queen is ever forthcoming then the nobles will either install a new House of Royalty or power will devolve into a Commonwealth or Republic with leaders elected.

You can't have a Kingdom without a King or Queen either installed or in-waiting.

The aim is to have a Crown but not "worn" as it were.
We're trying to come up with preventing a republic but not creating a new King/Queen.
A kind of Crown-in-trust as it were.
To all intents and purposes it would be a republic but it would not label itself as such, hence the extended use of Regent. A "it's only temporary" regency that becomes entrenched in tradition.

I don't think this is so impossible. The example that springs to mind first is Francoist Spain, where a traditionalist dictator used royalism for the sake of legitimacy and traditionalist credentials but refused to actually crown a monarch who might challenge his own power. If you create a scenario where powers much more conservative than OTL's (I mean traditional conservatives, not the bizarre modern-day parlance where classical liberals are called conservatives) are common, that shouldn't be too hard. If the Kaiserreich wins the First World War, that should suffice to create such an environment of conservatism in most of Europe; give it some socialist or republican unrest that deposes monarchies in some states and then have traditionalist dictators (perhaps backed by Germany as a 'lesser of two evils' thing) rise to power in many formerly republican states, and they might act as Franco did, officially restoring monarchy but not actually crowning a rightful monarch.

Hmmm so more likely as modern postrepublics for legitimacy?

Any way to have this earlier and not so temporary?
 
Dead guy as the immortal quasi-religious king and formal head of state, de facto head of state is a formal regent. See: North Korea.
 
Top