3 ms·
There is plenty of Historical precedent for a regency in monarchies. It's not necessarily a departure from the constitution, and in fact I cannot think of an en
by namaria 3y ago
There is plenty of Historical precedent for a regency in monarchies. It's not necessarily a departure from the constitution, and in fact I cannot think of an enduring monarchic regime that has not had regency periods, that is, periods when someone rules in the stead of a nominal sovereign.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> plenty of Historical precedent for a regency in monarchies MBS isn't acting as a regent, though. Salman remains the formal head of state. Dragonwriter made a compelling point, however, in Salman having formally delegated a lot of powers to MBS. So maybe MBS isn't a tyrant, though it's difficult to argue either Salman or MBS are absolute monarchs at this time in practice. (Their "crown" retains absolute power. But that's slightly, and very meaningfully, different.)
- namaria 3y agoSo MBS is a prince with governing authority in an absolute monarchy. The position is grooming for he is the heir apparent. It would appear that what he decides - such as building a desert boondoggle to transfer cash to supporters - is not signed off by anyone. He makes it so by fiat. Semantic excursions are interesting but seem to have carried us in a wide circle around the point that started this thread.