A monarchical system of inheritance of power, polished for centuries, is built, it would seem, solidly and reliably. “ Anointed of God, ” since no one claims to be his place, there’s nothing to worry about — scandalous resignations, impeachment and other troubles (unlike the elected head of government or state) do not threaten him.
Know yourself, sit on the throne until the end of the century, and if you get tired, you transfer the monarchal duties along with the regalia to the heir and enjoy a well-deserved rest! In most cases, this is exactly what happens (the most recent example is the “resignation” of the Queen of the Netherlands), but there is something called the “dynastic crisis”, and this phenomenon can undermine the tree of the most powerful and eminent monarchy ... What kind of misfortune , why such an expression resembling a disappointing medical diagnosis?
A dynastic crisis is, in a nutshell, the absence of a successor. The very heir to the throne, who, having become a full-fledged king (king, emperor, sultan, etc.), will not let the monarch of the dynasty, to which he belongs, stop himself. But the reasons why this smooth transfer of power may not take place, a great many, only one in any case remains immutable - this situation always brings chaos and confusion, and in some cases the very existence of a state that suddenly remains without a supreme is called into question lords.
How, for example, would the fate of the empire of Alexander the Great happen if this Macedonian king, who had become the lord of numerous lands and peoples, took care of a successor before dying on his way back from India? But Alexander died overnight, and his empire fell apart into several kingdoms hostile to each other, which, in turn, also did not last long. Thus, two dynasties broke off at once: the modest Macedonian, whose crown Alexander inherited, and the one he founded; it ended with him.
And here is an example of how the dynastic crisis plunged another empire into confusion - the British. In 1936, King Edward VIII decently ascended the throne, by all rules, but he did not reign for long, only about 10 months, and then renounced the royal dignity in favor of his younger brother (the father of the current Queen Elizabeth). This was preceded by a grandiose scandal, because the reason for everything was a woman - not only was a foreigner, who was also divorced. What a horror for a good, old England! Edward could not marry her in the rank of king, but he did not want to leave her as a gentleman, preferring to leave the throne.
The definition of crisis as a “congenital disease”, as an inevitable risk factor inherent in the monarchical system itself, is confirmed not only in historical facts, but also in culture - from fairy tales and legends to paintings of artists and dramatists. However, this is another, no less interesting topic, replete with the most unexpected subjects - both tragic and truly comedic.
And as long as monarchies exist, as long as the Great, Terrible (and sometimes Funny) dynastic crisis decides their fate, these plots will not be exhausted.