Plausibility Check: could Caesar or Augustus have restored the Monarchy?

OK. So we do agree on most points.

That Caesar was conservative and probably was more of a republican than Augustus, Pompey and Marius were, I do agree with you. That's the theory of Ronald Syme and it is both coherent and brilliant. There is much similarity in the respective cursus of Sylla and Caesar on one side (except for the cruelty) and Marius, Pompey and Augustus on the other side.

Let's not underestimate, however, the circumstances. Caesar did things how he did because he had but no choice to respect legality. He did not enjoy enough political backing to be exempted from regulations. Once the civil war began, he took the powers he thought were necessary.

Let's not overestimate either the differences between Caesar and Augustus. Caesar's memory has been tarnished by Augustus who put his feet into his adoptive father's footsteps but falsely claimed he was not doing so and who gave his reluctant backers the symbolic satisfaction of moderately bashing Caesar's memory.
The reality is, for example, that Caesar was dictator for life and that as a dictator he did not need tribunician powers because now tribune was legally entitled to veto the acts of a dictator and that Caesar also took for himself the sacrosanctitas of tribunes in order to make his person permanently sacred.
And since he thought he could no longer take the title of dictator, Augustus chose an other combination to reach quite the same result : he had permanent imperium majus and he had tribunitia potestas without being tribune so that he could veto other tribunes and other magistrates' acts without being submited to the collegiality of tribunes.

One of the other brillant points that Syme developed is that it was more important for the roman aristocrats of the oldest lineages to serve and be granted honors in any kind of power, even a monarchic one, than to lose status in a res publica libera. Both Sulla and Caesar fought their way to reestablish the status of their family. They willingly accepted and promoted young talents.
Marius, Pompey and Augustus were more concerned with controlling and blocking the system so that they would prevent any potential rival from emerging and challengin their rule.
 

Red Orm

Banned
Agreed. And as you mention those differences, that is a way in which Augustus behaved in a very kingly manner, controlling the system so that only his own family members, for example, hold triumphs or are regarded very highly in the "Republic". Sulla and Caesar both allowed their enemies to live and even thrive, with Sulla's last appointed senior consul being his detractor Lepidus, and Caesar pardoning all of his enemies in the civil war. They wanted the wealth and breadth of experience and influence these men had, to increase the Senate's value to the Republic. Not a very kingly thing to do, pardoning noble enemies. Augustus on the other hand in effect created his own nobility, proscribing and promoting men at will.
 
I would not say Sulla let his enemies live. ;-)

Lepidus was not an enemy of Sulla. He was an opportunist who joined Sulla when it was clear that Sulla would won the civil war and who criticized Sulla when Sulla had dropped all his legal powers and had made it clear that he would let the republic resume its traditional free functioning in the circle of his restored nobility.

The difference between Caesar and Augustus is that Augustus was extremely concerned about founding a dynasty. But the difference with Caesar may be biased because Caesar had no child and no grandchild of his blood left (Julia died in 54) and he may have acted quite similarly to Augustus if he had had a grown-up son, daughter or grandchild of his blood.
 

Red Orm

Banned
I would not say Sulla let his enemies live. ;-)

Lepidus was not an enemy of Sulla. He was an opportunist who joined Sulla when it was clear that Sulla would won the civil war and who criticized Sulla when Sulla had dropped all his legal powers and had made it clear that he would let the republic resume its traditional free functioning in the circle of his restored nobility.

The difference between Caesar and Augustus is that Augustus was extremely concerned about founding a dynasty. But the difference with Caesar may be biased because Caesar had no child and no grandchild of his blood left (Julia died in 54) and he may have acted quite similarly to Augustus if he had had a grown-up son, daughter or grandchild of his blood.

He sure proscribed a lot of knights, but he let most of his senatorial opponents (who didn't raise arms against him) live, and even let Scipio Asina go free the first time. Lepidus was in no way aligned with Sulla's policies ideologically, he was a political opponent. It's telling that Sulla would award him with the consulship despite this.

Well Caesar did have a great-nephew who was his main heir, and yet he never showed any outstanding favor to Octavius, which he would have had he been interested in establishing a dynasty. Surely knowing that his great-nephew would adopt his name and influence meant that Caesar, had he had any royal aspirations, would have gotten Octavius special commissions, or powers, or offices?
 
He sure proscribed a lot of knights, but he let most of his senatorial opponents (who didn't raise arms against him) live, and even let Scipio Asina go free the first time. Lepidus was in no way aligned with Sulla's policies ideologically, he was a political opponent. It's telling that Sulla would award him with the consulship despite this.

Well Caesar did have a great-nephew who was his main heir, and yet he never showed any outstanding favor to Octavius, which he would have had he been interested in establishing a dynasty. Surely knowing that his great-nephew would adopt his name and influence meant that Caesar, had he had any royal aspirations, would have gotten Octavius special commissions, or powers, or offices?

I disagree with your statement that Sulla granted the consulship to Lepidus. He did not. The elections were as free as they could be. Sulla no longer had any public position in July 79 when these elections were held. And Sulla did not oppose but he did not either support Lepidus' candidacy.

Concerning Caesar, he had 1 geandnephew, Octavius, but also 2 nephews, Pinarius Scarpus and Pedius.

And I have a theory about Octavius' adoption by Caesar. This adoption was secret. Octavius learnt about it only after Caesar's death, which was very unusual. Adoptions were made public. And concerning adoption into a patrician gens, It had to be validated by a Lex Curiata to be fully recognized, which only happened in 43.

So my theory is that Octavius' secret adoption by Caesar through his will was just a temporary provision. Caesar wanted to have a heir of his name if he ever died accidentally but would have changed his will if he had had a son by his wife Calpurnia.
 

Red Orm

Banned
I disagree with your statement that Sulla granted the consulship to Lepidus. He did not. The elections were as free as they could be. Sulla no longer had any public position in July 79 when these elections were held. And Sulla did not oppose but he did not either support Lepidus' candidacy.

Concerning Caesar, he had 1 geandnephew, Octavius, but also 2 nephews, Pinarius Scarpus and Pedius.

And I have a theory about Octavius' adoption by Caesar. This adoption was secret. Octavius learnt about it only after Caesar's death, which was very unusual. Adoptions were made public. And concerning adoption into a patrician gens, It had to be validated by a Lex Curiata to be fully recognized, which only happened in 43.

So my theory is that Octavius' secret adoption by Caesar through his will was just a temporary provision. Caesar wanted to have a heir of his name if he ever died accidentally but would have changed his will if he had had a son by his wife Calpurnia.

Well okay, I am not sure about that either. Some sources say that Sulla resigned his dictatorship in 81 BC, some say 79 BC. 81 BC seems unlikely to me because he if that was the case then he wouldn't have had enough time to accomplish all the major reforms and proscriptions that he did. And if he did resign in 79 BC, why would he do so before the elections were held? Surely he would want to at least have another year of consuls selected by himself?

That doesn't really make any sense, as a temporary provision. With Caesar on the eve of leaving for the East, wouldn't he want a more permanent provision in place? It is also clear that Caesar himself was fertile, and though we don't know in Calpurnia's case, it seems unlikely. He certainly didn't bother to be around her much and to try to create an heir. Given Caesar's grand ideas about himself, it might even be the case that he wished to spare any potential Roman son of his the burden of being the son of such a great man. Even more surprising is that he would choose as his heir the inexperienced, relatively unknown Gaius Octavius, barely out of boyhood, instead of more experienced Pinarius, Pedius, or even the very experienced Brutus Albinus.

From what I remember a lex curiata was only required for adoption into the patriciate after 30 BC.
 
Well okay, I am not sure about that either. Some sources say that Sulla resigned his dictatorship in 81 BC, some say 79 BC. 81 BC seems unlikely to me because he if that was the case then he wouldn't have had enough time to accomplish all the major reforms and proscriptions that he did. And if he did resign in 79 BC, why would he do so before the elections were held? Surely he would want to at least have another year of consuls selected by himself?

That doesn't really make any sense, as a temporary provision. With Caesar on the eve of leaving for the East, wouldn't he want a more permanent provision in place? It is also clear that Caesar himself was fertile, and though we don't know in Calpurnia's case, it seems unlikely. He certainly didn't bother to be around her much and to try to create an heir. Given Caesar's grand ideas about himself, it might even be the case that he wished to spare any potential Roman son of his the burden of being the son of such a great man. Even more surprising is that he would choose as his heir the inexperienced, relatively unknown Gaius Octavius, barely out of boyhood, instead of more experienced Pinarius, Pedius, or even the very experienced Brutus Albinus.

From what I remember a lex curiata was only required for adoption into the patriciate after 30 BC.

I know the thesis for a resignation of Sulla from the dictatorship as late as 79 and in fact I do favour it because It is based in Appian who is probably the best source. But however, all sources agree that Lepidus campaigned in 79 for the consulship of 78 by making public harsh criticisms against Sulla, which would have been unthinkable if Sulla still held the dictatorship at that moment. So Sulla must have redigned his dictatorship before the elections for the consulship of 78 that took place by July or August 79 according to his laws.

Temporary provisions for one's will make perfect sense. Don't misunterstand the meaning of the term. I don't mean that this will had a fixed term after which It would become invalid. I just mean It could be later revoked if It later was opportune to do so.
That's what Caesar did OTL. He privately instituted Pompey as his heir (without adoption) from 59 (when Pompey married his daughter Julia) to 49 (after the civil war started, he made his private public as a proof that he had always tried to maintain friendship with Pompey). And then of course Caesar chose an other private unknown heir who probably was his paternal cousin and ally Sextus Julius Caesar, because one could not cancel a will without replacing It by a new will.

And I don't buy the idea of Caesar fearing the burden of his name for one son. No roman aristocrat feared It so much that he would not want a son of his blood. The essence of roman aristocracy was perpetuating their lineage. This is why every time they could, sonless aristocrats adopted either a grandson by one if their daughters or a nephew. And Caesar was the ultimate roman aristocrat, both a giant on the battlefield, in political manoeuvers, as an orator and as a writer.
 
Fascinating discussion so far! I'm really glad that so many people have been interested in the subject. So something no one has yet brought up (which is kinda surprising to me) is that Caesar already had a son when he was assassinated in 44 BC: his child with Cleopatra, Ptolemy XV Caesar, AKA Caesarion. Surely this son, Caesar's only male issue, would play into his plans if he survived the assassination and became King. I know people will point out that he was a bastard and a foreigner, thus unable to succeed to any of his father's positions or inherit Caesar's fortune but that's only as the law stood in 44 BC. There's also the argument that Caesar had doubts about the paternity and that's why he didn't mention the kid in his will, but I call BS on that. Caesarion was three when his father was murdered and in no position to play any role other than figurehead, so its not surprising that there was no acknowledgement.

Now legally speaking, Caesar had huge amounts of authority as Dictator and nothing was stopping him from granting Cleopatra and their son Roman citizenship (after all most later Client Kings were granted citizenship to tie them closer to the Empire), making Caesarion adoptable. Or he could in theory marry Cleopatra if she's a Roman citizen; I don't think there were any laws specifically against a Roman citizen marrying a royal who had also gained citizenship. Hell, reading in-between the lines, that might have been part of his actual plan. After all, why did Cleopatra live in Rome for nearly two years? She wasn't needed there for aiding in the upcoming Parthian campaign. Nor was she needed to show Roman power over Egypt: her sister Arsinoë IV's presence in Caesar's Egyptian triumph took care of that. As far as I can tell no one has been able to answer that question to any satisfaction. She could have been in Rome to get the elite used to her before she emerged as Caesar's new wife.

This also ties into the ideas brought up over Caesar's will. I don't think Octavian was ever meant to be his great-uncle's heir, more of a placeholder. Not unlike the position Tiberius initially held for Augustus while his grandsons were too young to play a role in the Empire. Now I could be completely wrong here, but its pretty obvious that Caesar was trying to become King. And who better a Queen then the richest woman in the world? The living link to Alexander the Great and his empire? The one who did what three previous wives had failed to do and produced a son and successor?

Finally I don't understand why people are thinking that Caesar was more of a Republican than Augustus was. Caesar seemed to have no plans on relinquishing power, even for show. His constitutional reforms show an aim to consolidate power into his own hands rather than doing anything to restore the traditional magistrates. Hell his very act of crossing the Rubicon suggests a willingness to disregard the traditions of the Republic. So I really just don't get it.

When I say king and kingly title I mean king of Rome and kingly title in Rome. So we're in agreement. Kingship was an institution for lesser, less enlightened nations, in Roman opinion. Augustus was Pharaoh, but only while in Egypt.

That's kinda bizarre. Your idea more or less demeans the constant Roman admiration for Alexander the Great. Saying a Kingship is for lesser nations means that the Empire Alexander built was a lesser nation. It says the admired Empire of Cyrus the Great was lesser. As to your points in a previous post, supposedly several Senators told Caesar they planned to make him King on the Ides of March, which contributed to his attendance that day. Or he planned on becoming King after conquering Parthia, a sort of final crowning achievement.

To Matteo's points about the rejection of the elite, again a bit strange. They wouldn't accept a King but they'll accept an absolute military dictator who's King in all but name? That's just splitting hairs. Also I've read that on several different occasions the mobs shouting "Caesar Rex!", meaning King Caesar or Caesar for King, with Caesar himself saying something like "Not King but Caesar" and played it off as a joke but clearly the idea wasn't universally unpopular.

Finally, and not to sound crass, but I don't think Octavian would have had the b@lls to become King. Now Caesar, as he proved at the Rubicon, did.
 

Red Orm

Banned
I know the thesis for a resignation of Sulla from the dictatorship as late as 79 and in fact I do favour it because It is based in Appian who is probably the best source. But however, all sources agree that Lepidus campaigned in 79 for the consulship of 78 by making public harsh criticisms against Sulla, which would have been unthinkable if Sulla still held the dictatorship at that moment. So Sulla must have redigned his dictatorship before the elections for the consulship of 78 that took place by July or August 79 according to his laws.

Temporary provisions for one's will make perfect sense. Don't misunterstand the meaning of the term. I don't mean that this will had a fixed term after which It would become invalid. I just mean It could be later revoked if It later was opportune to do so.
That's what Caesar did OTL. He privately instituted Pompey as his heir (without adoption) from 59 (when Pompey married his daughter Julia) to 49 (after the civil war started, he made his private public as a proof that he had always tried to maintain friendship with Pompey). And then of course Caesar chose an other private unknown heir who probably was his paternal cousin and ally Sextus Julius Caesar, because one could not cancel a will without replacing It by a new will.

And I don't buy the idea of Caesar fearing the burden of his name for one son. No roman aristocrat feared It so much that he would not want a son of his blood. The essence of roman aristocracy was perpetuating their lineage. This is why every time they could, sonless aristocrats adopted either a grandson by one if their daughters or a nephew. And Caesar was the ultimate roman aristocrat, both a giant on the battlefield, in political manoeuvers, as an orator and as a writer.

Are you sure that he campaigned by making harsh public criticisms, or simply happened to make harsh public criticisms and was chosen by Sulla? It seems unlikely that Sulla would have resigned before holding the elections for the following year's magistrates. It also seems likely given what we know of Sulla's contradictory and sometimes ridiculous nature that he'd choose this way to leave office, saddling Catulus whom by all accounts Sulla didn't like much with contrarian Lepidus as senior colleague.

I understood your meaning the first time and I still stand by what I said, after all, of course a will can be updated or replaced, it would be insane if this weren't so. Why would Caesar leave an unsatisfactory will when he knew that he would be leaving for the East for years at least, and, almost being an old man, with a not small chance of dying during that time? Pompey being his heir for the ten years previous could have just been a political stunt, a faked will, he certainly had the clout as dictator and pontifex maximus to boot (since it was the Vestals who lodged and recorded wills) to falsify it, but that's neither here nor there.

You mean Lucius Julius Caesar? In any case, from what we know of Caesar's life he really had an impressive lack of regard for producing a male heir, despite there being no satisfactory close male relatives for most of that time. If Caesar had really cared so much for the legacy of his bloodline you'd think he would have made more children. I think he cared mostly for his own image which would survive him after death, since no blood son could live up to it. Some people underestimate the sheer pride and hubris in him, how could he risk producing a son that was not as perfect as he? So he didn't risk it, and adopted.
 

Red Orm

Banned
That's kinda bizarre. Your idea more or less demeans the constant Roman admiration for Alexander the Great. Saying a Kingship is for lesser nations means that the Empire Alexander built was a lesser nation. It says the admired Empire of Cyrus the Great was lesser. As to your points in a previous post, supposedly several Senators told Caesar they planned to make him King on the Ides of March, which contributed to his attendance that day. Or he planned on becoming King after conquering Parthia, a sort of final crowning achievement.

To everything else you posted: Well Sulla was the very first Roman to march on Rome, and then he did it a second time, yet he gave up his powers very willingly not long afterward. One doesn't have to stay squeaky clean to be more of a Republican than somebody else. For one, Augustus was consul at a much younger age than was legal, which from what we know Caesar disapproved of (at least where Pompey was concerned). He did consolidate power into his own hands, but he made no moves or provisions for those powers being granted to his successor, as far as I can tell.

As for this, it's not bizarre at all. Romans sure admired Alexander as a general, but surely they knew that he was a pitiful administrator. How could his nation not be lesser??? It didn't even last ten years. How could Cyrus's empire not be lesser to a Roman? It's rulers were fratricides and patricides.
 
Are you sure that he campaigned by making harsh public criticisms, or simply happened to make harsh public criticisms and was chosen by Sulla? It seems unlikely that Sulla would have resigned before holding the elections for the following year's magistrates. It also seems likely given what we know of Sulla's contradictory and sometimes ridiculous nature that he'd choose this way to leave office, saddling Catulus whom by all accounts Sulla didn't like much with contrarian Lepidus as senior colleague.

I understood your meaning the first time and I still stand by what I said, after all, of course a will can be updated or replaced, it would be insane if this weren't so. Why would Caesar leave an unsatisfactory will when he knew that he would be leaving for the East for years at least, and, almost being an old man, with a not small chance of dying during that time? Pompey being his heir for the ten years previous could have just been a political stunt, a faked will, he certainly had the clout as dictator and pontifex maximus to boot (since it was the Vestals who lodged and recorded wills) to falsify it, but that's neither here nor there.

You mean Lucius Julius Caesar? In any case, from what we know of Caesar's life he really had an impressive lack of regard for producing a male heir, despite there being no satisfactory close male relatives for most of that time. If Caesar had really cared so much for the legacy of his bloodline you'd think he would have made more children. I think he cared mostly for his own image which would survive him after death, since no blood son could live up to it. Some people underestimate the sheer pride and hubris in him, how could he risk producing a son that was not as perfect as he? So he didn't risk it, and adopted.


Thinking of it again, I have doubts about the criticisms against Sulla during Lepidus’ campaign. But I have no doubt about Sulla’s opposition to Lepidus.

Here is the description by Roland Syme, based on Plutarch, of the consular campaign in 79 for 78 : “Despite strong opposition from Sulla, Pompeius threw in his popularity on Lepidus’ side in the campaign and secured his victory. When Pompeius was returning from the poll exultant in his victory, Sulla rebuked him. “A fine piece of work in truth, to get Lepidus into the consulate before Catulus (meaning Lepidus won more centuries than his colleague Catulus), the vilest of all men before the best. …”



I don’t mean Caesar’s will was unsatisfactory. I mean it was temporary and revocable as his previous wills and that he would have changed it again. I insist on the peculiarity of Caesar’s adoption by will of Augustus. It was secret. Usually, especially when having reached old age (55 was old age in ancient time), sonless roman aristocrats adopted a heir (usually a nephew or cousin, or the son of a political friend), made public the adoption publicly known and did not perform it by will.

Adoption by will was kind of tricky.

It is, for example, the trick that Servilia Caepionis (mother of Marcus Junius Brutus, the murderer of Caesar) used when the last male of her clan died (her brother Quintus Servilius Caepio). She organized the posthumus adoption of her son Marcus Junius Brutus by, so that the Servilii Capiones did not extinct.

And adoption by will kept secret was all the more tricky. It was very unusual to keep secret from the beneficiary.



I was referring to Sextus Julius Caesar, grandson of Sextus Julius Caesar, who was consul in 91 and was Caesar’s paternal uncle (the elder borther of Caesar’s father).

Not to Lucius Julius Caesar, consul in 64 (who was a more distant relative of Caesar and was the maternal uncle of Anthony), nor to his son Lucius Julius Caesar, who was a harsh opponent of Caesar during the civil war and was killed after the battle of Thapsus.
 
I don't think Augustus could have pulled it off. But if Caesar had lived and had gone conquering in the East, I not only think he could have done, I think he would have done it.
nope not a chance. They were hostile enough to him having a relationship to a "Furrin" Monarch. Becoming a Monarch himself out of the question, except by using eastern troops to hold down Rome by force. Very hard to do and if done its not a Roman state anymore. This is very likely what would have happened if Mark Anthony and Cleopatra had won. The state is no longer Roman except in name.
 
Three generations.
Even if neither Caesar nor Octavian could make themselves kings, then Tiberius or an alternate successor of Octavian could. But at this point there would be little point in doing so.
Fish don't notice water they swim. If you lived your entire life under emperors, and there is no-one left alive who remembers how life was before emperors, well, emperor becomes undistinguished from king. "Princeps" is now effectively the same thing as "Rex", only that former is good and latter is bad.
If you just want codified hereditary succession, well, you don't need a king. Just make those bunch of titles hereditary, or tie them to one title ex officio, and make that one title hereditary. But there was no point in doing that either, because Roman aristocrats had abysmal fertility. So why bother making your job hereditary, if you don't have son of your own blood to pass it on?
 
Finally I don't understand why people are thinking that Caesar was more of a Republican than Augustus was. Caesar seemed to have no plans on relinquishing power, even for show. His constitutional reforms show an aim to consolidate power into his own hands rather than doing anything to restore the traditional magistrates. Hell his very act of crossing the Rubicon suggests a willingness to disregard the traditions of the Republic. So I really just don't get it.

Again, it'd be like an American president who becomes dictator in all but name declaring himself King of Britain. It's a pointless affectation that goes against the founding principles of the Republic for no particular reason or gain. Maybe Caligula would declare himself Rex Romae, but neither Caesar nor Augustus have the desire nor the will to. Why take the title of Rex Romae beyond pissing off enemies and unnerving allies when Imperator serves fine and keeps a certain common touch?
 
Again, it'd be like an American president who becomes dictator in all but name declaring himself King of Britain. It's a pointless affectation that goes against the founding principles of the Republic for no particular reason or gain. Maybe Caligula would declare himself Rex Romae, but neither Caesar nor Augustus have the desire nor the will to. Why take the title of Rex Romae beyond pissing off enemies and unnerving allies when Imperator serves fine and keeps a certain common touch?
Because of the succession.A family's rule over a dictatorship generally don't survive past the founder of the dictatorship.By making it an official monarchy,there's a greater chance of the family's rule surviving past the founder.People will be pissed if Augustus declared himself king right after Actium,but it's an entirely different matter if he did so ten to twenty years after Actium.An entire generation of people would have lived and prospered under his rule.Nobody would want to stir the hornet's nest by trying to assassinate or overthrow Augustus.By the time Augustus died,people more or less accepted the de facto monarchy and the people from the east even called him as king.
 
Because of the succession.A family's rule over a dictatorship generally don't survive past the founder of the dictatorship.By making it an official monarchy,there's a greater chance of the family's rule surviving past the founder.People will be pissed if Augustus declared himself king right after Actium,but it's an entirely different matter if he did so ten to twenty years after Actium.An entire generation of people would have lived and prospered under his rule.Nobody would want to stir the hornet's nest by trying to assassinate or overthrow Augustus.By the time Augustus died,people more or less accepted the de facto monarchy and the people from the east even called him as king.

You make it sound as if the Caesars actually intended to keep it in the family. And even if they did, the elective aspect of the title Rex would not have helped. Indeed, it'd probably remind people of the Tarquins and destabilize the system rather than bolster the stability of the regime of the Caesars.
 
You make it sound as if the Caesars actually intended to keep it in the family. And even if they did, the elective aspect of the title Rex would not have helped. Indeed, it'd probably remind people of the Tarquins and destabilize the system rather than bolster the stability of the regime of the Caesars.
Augustus most certainly did want to keep it in the family.It most certainly was a family thing.As for the elective aspect of king,most likely,people will look to the eastern model of kingship as an influence rather than a model of kingship they haven't used for centuries.After ruling ten to twenty years,the regime's not going to be overthrown just because it reminded them of eastern potentates or the Tarquins.Most people likely won't give a damn.
 
Last edited:
After ruling ten to twenty years,the regime's not going to be overthrown just because it reminded them of eastern potentates or the Tarquins.Most people likely won't give a damn.

Eeh. Maybe after sixty years of relatively stable rule and no systemic alternative. If Augustus had a surviving and competent son after ruling for thirty years I could see it.
 
No need to have a Rex to be a hereditary monarchy. Just have the dynasty continue. That's it!

The only reason Nero wasn't succeeded by a Julio-Claudian was because there were no other Julio Claudians left! It became a "open" and it was realized that someone not related could become a Princeps.

Or have a continuous series of sons succeeding fathers. Remember that the French Monarchy was originally elective too, and the HRE became de facto hereditary under the Habsburgs. If the dynasty does not run out, you will have a hereditary monarchy in all but name!
 
Top