Why would a country have both a monarch and a president?

Question

In a Web-miniseries I want to create, Les Superbes Germains Lacasse (I want that the original title to be in French) (the title means The Super Lacasse Siblings), there is a strange country that can be called a quadrumvirate, and that is both a diarchy and a double republic: there are four Heads of State that share the same power: two monarchs (one empress, and one male emperor), and two presidents (one female, and one male) (when a non-binary person and/or a genderfluid person wants to become Head of State, there are three or four monarchs, and three or four presidents). Each Head of State has one Head of Government (these people are called the Four Prime Ministers).

Also, in this country, the monarchs are not referred as "Your Majesty" or "Your Highness", instead, they are referred as "Mr. King" and "Ms. Queen". These monarchs are both elected and constitutional.

Finally, not only citizens are supposed to do the reverence to the monarchs, but they must also do the reverence to the presidents. Nevertheless, (I want the original language of my work to be French, my native language) citizens tend to use the French pronoun tu (homologous to the archaic English pronoun "thou") when addressing to any of their Head of State.

So, I wonder why would a country have both a monarch, and a president (or, alternatively, both multiple monarchs, and multiple presidents).

Answer 1

1. There are historical examples of countries where a king and a queen ruled jointly:

   • Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon, who married specifically for the purpose of creating a great united Kingdom of Spain.

     They are actually known together as the Catholic Monarchs, so there is historical precedent of calling both members of such a pair "monarchs". It is, in fact, the most common way to refer to them when speaking of their joint rule, as opposed to their lives before the marriage.

     ^{Since you are writing in French, please note that while in English Ferdinand-and-Isabella are known as the Catholic Monarchs, in Romance languages they are the Catholic Kings -- French les Rois Catholiques, Italian i Re Cattolici, Romanian Regii Catolici, Spanish los Reyes Católicos.}

   • William III and Mary II, whose marriage brought about the Glorious Revolution which created the modern English (and, later, British) state.

     They ruled England, Scotland and Ireland as co-equals. Their coins bear the legend "GVLIELMVS ET MARIA DEI GRATIA MAG BR FR ET HIB REX ET REGINA", William and Mary by the Grace of God King and Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland. Legislation passed during their reign, such as the foundational Bill of Rights is cited as Will. and Mary year number.

     And of course the furniture design which became popular during their reign is known as the William and Mary style.

   • Jadwiga of Poland and Władysław Jagiełło of Lithuania, whose marriage created the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which will continue as the great power in North-Eastern Europe for centuries.

     ^{Fun details: Jadwiga was King of Poland when she married Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania; and he converted to Christianity specifically in order to marry the beautiful King of Poland and create the great power which at some times stretched (almost) all the way from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, inter maria.}

2. Which examples provide an easy path towards the desired state: after a long and glorious joint reign of a king and queen, resulted by a serendipitous accident of marriage, the Parliament decided that for the welfare of the nation this solution shall be perpetuated. As a side effect, authors of pseudo-historical narratives now have a rich source of plotting, as the importance of the marriage of a crown prince or crown princess is dramatically increased.

3. As for the two presidents, words are not magic. It is trivial to come up with two Most Very Important Persons in the kingdom, besides the King and Queen. For example, the role called the Speaker of the House (of Commons in the United Kingdom and of Representatives the United States) is called the President of the Chamber of Deputies in other countries. In fact, in the U.S.A., the Senate actually has a President, so that we can say that the United States has three presidents: the president-President, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

4. The four Prime Ministers are then trivial. Each of the four Most Very Important Persons has an apparatus which serves to fulfill the royal or presidential functions. Just make it customary to call the head of such an apparatus Prime Minister. Done.

5. As regards the linguistic peculiarities of the language spoken in that country, they are just that, linguistic peculiarities. They need no explanation.

   If you need a historical example: Roman citizens addressed their emperor in the second person singular until well into the 3rd century CE. If a Roman citizen could say tu Trajane audi me nunc, I don't see why a subject of the Twice Double Monarchy could not say tu le Roi écoute-moi maintenant.

Answer 2

Monarch, President, Minister.

There are two houses of government. For example in America there is the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the UK there is the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In France there is the Senate and the National Assembly.

The President heads one house. The Prime Minister heads the other house. One might be in charge of the other.

The Monarch sits above all of this. They can issue absolute orders whenever they like. The democracy only exists by their consent.

Figurehead, President, Minister

Same as above, except the monarch plays only a symbolic role. They appear on the telly once a year and do a speech or a song. You can pay ten pounds to go in their second house but they probably won't be there.

Perhaps no government can be formed without the monarch's say-so. However they have given the say-so every year for the past four hundred years. It is an open secret that if they opposed the government the rule would be kicked out.

X, Diplomat, Minister

In this setup the manarch can be what you want. The Prime Minister heads the democracy. The president is an elected role like Grand Diplomat. They spend most of their time at fancy parties in other countries preaching moral virtue with other diplomats.

X, President, Minister

The Prime Minister heads the government. The President does whatever it is the President of America does. The biggest parts of the job are singing the national anthem; eating cheeseburgers the size of your head; shooting your assault rifle at the sky; and bombing the middle east.

FOUR of each?

This doesn't make much sense. If four people have the same job they cannot all be PRIME minister. The Prime minister is the minister who is in charge of the other ministers. Likewise for Presidents and Monarchs.

Your best bet is to have the country be a tight union of several countries, each with their own Monarch, President and Minister. There is unrestricted travel between the countries and many people live in one and work in another.

Answer 3

The country is a federation, similar to the United Arab Emirates.

The United Arab Emirates is an elective monarchy formed from a federation of seven emirates, consisting of Abu Dhabi (The capital), Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras Al Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm Al Quwain.[13]

In a similar way, your country is divided into two states. The two presidents and two monarchs each come from a segment of the country, and each have control over their region and make group decisions for the nation at large together.

There's lots of room for webcomic hijinks when the interests of states aren't aligned or one leader claims the territory of another. While in theory they may rule separate regions, in practice they can each have people of power in each other's territory.

The president and the king represent different interests.

The king represents the old nobility of each region and has lots of connections with old money. The president represents new money and modern businesses. Originally the country had two kings or a king and a queen, but over time the houses of legislation have grown more powerful and now presidents are as powerful as kings.

Answer 4

Separation of Powers

In most modern governments, power is divided among multiple branches and positions with no single person or administration in ultimate control. This creates a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power, unlawful takeovers, and tyranny.

But be careful! The way that each leader's power interacts with the others could be problematic; if they all share the exact same power in every context, how are disputes or deadlocks resolved? Perhaps the different roles oversee different governmental functions such as executive, legislative, and judicial authority, or different steps in the decision-making process.

Answer 5

It Might be a Co-Principality Like Andorra

Andorra is a co-principality, whose heads of state are jointly a Catholic bishop and the President of France. This is because the “co-principality” was originally established between a bishop and a lord who were close to each other in power, then various wars moved the region under French control, and finally, France had a revolution and abolished all its feudal titles. it did not want to give up its influence over Andorra, so their new head of state, whoever that was, took over the role.

The President Might not be President of the Nation

A statesperson called “the President” is typically the head-of-state of a republic, but not always.

For example, the Vice-President of the United States is the President of the Sebate. In that capacity, she is addressed as “Madam President.” I’m not familiar with the story you describe, and your description makes it sound like the political system is supposed to be a farce or parody, but perhaps “the President” is the President of the Council of Ministers, or of the legislature, and therefore the de facto head of government, while the monarch is the head of state.

Answer 6

Two monarchs is an oxymoron (monarch means that there is a single ruler, not necessarily a King, etc.). If you want an example of a system where there is 4 people who seems to have monarch-ish titles, then look no further than the Roman Empire, which at one point had a Tetrarchy, which means any system with four rulers, such as the one you described. Needless to say as this was a terrible idea, the system didn't last very long. Too many people with political power tends to lead to civil war, probably what ended the republic in the first place.

An elected "King" makes little sense. At that point they are not a King, but a public official with a title "King", which you can totally do. The Romans had 4 emperors, two senior (with the title "Augustus", referring to the first Emperor) and two junior (with the title "Caesar", referring to Augustus's uncle). Having them have equal power isn't really realistic, unless you want to make it look like your typical medieval kingdom. For example, you can have 4 duchies in a kingdom, where each duke has absolute power in their domain (and thus is a monarch) and theoretically have equal power to each other. But in these cases, there is usually a king (hence the kingdom part) who supersedes these dukes in authority.

Another example is the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire). Each peer was a monarch in their domain and the Emperor was elected from his peers. Either way, the system had elected "monarchs" as well as ordinary ones (dukes, kings, etc.). In all of these systems, a person is a monarch in their domain but may have another person above them (king, emperor, etc.). It's tricky when you want for 4 co-rulers in the same domain, as that is unstable and will turn out like the Roman situation. In fact, before the empire, the Roman Republic had two elected rulers (Consuls). This also often led to infighting and civil war but Consuls did not have the same level of political power as the Emperor later did (non elected positions tend not to have limits to their power).

Answer 7

COMPROMISE

What you are describing is a tetrarchy. They happen but are intrinsically unstable. They would exist as a compromise to solve a problem that the existing form of government could not solve. Their problem is that nobody could be ambitious and resources would have to naturally be spread evenly and nature couldn't have a drought in one sector without an equal drought in all others.

Any event in nature such as an untimely death, a drought or an invasion would trigger an imbalance in power and either a civil war or the sudden deposing of the alternate officeholders. As such, if a wise set of potential rulers set up a tetrarchy, they would also plan for its demise.

You should read up on the Tetrarchy in ancient Rome or about the splitting of Ancient Rome into a Western and Eastern half. If you go from a monarch to a tetrarchy, then there has to be some obstacle where the monarch realizes they will lose all power unless they surrender most of it.

For example, imagine a nation is being invaded and if the invasion is successful, the king will be deposed, maybe killed. On the other hand, if the king elevates three other people with access to their own resources as co-rulers, then the nation will live. Of course, the image to the public must always be one of unity. What really has happened is a council of four people now rules. Of course, if voting is used, a two versus two tie could lead to civil war.

Elective presidencies do not usually yield to monarchies but that has happened. Monarchies do become republics more commonly. After all, a hereditary monarchy is a rather preposterous concept. It would imply that the family will always have the fittest of rulers by virtue of birth. It also implies that no other family has this property and that it is true in every generation.

What you would be describing, if it happened, would be to elevate a member of the royal house as co-ruler and add an additional president. The prime ministers would not be true prime ministers but the primary minister for each of the four members of the tetrarchy. You are creating succession issues, of course, and I would expect the four to be very careful in the rules used as they have their own self interest and families.

Answer 8

It sounds to me that, if both monarchs and both presidents share the same power, it is merely a difference in their titles. So, in effect, they are all presidents, or all monarchs. I wouldn't differentiate them unless:

1. You have a type of alliance between a nation governed by a president/two presidents and a nation governed by a monarch/two monarchs. You can have it so that the monarchs do not possess absolute power and must discuss things with the presidents. The two nations would work together to further their protection, technological advancement, etc.
2. Set it up so that one pair (presidents or monarchs) has the ruling power over the nation, while the other pair either functions as advisors, ambassadors, or a 'back-up' pair of leaders (in the event of war, assassination, or anything else takes out the first pair). This would serve to reassure the country that, in the case of an emergency, everything is ready. In this case, I can envision the monarchs being the true rulers, while the presidents are the back-up pair.

Answer 9

Systems of checks and balances

Perhaps your monarchs hold complete executive power. However Any decision he makes can be vetoed by the first president, This veto can be overturned by the Queen. However she can be blocked from overturning the vito by the 2nd president.

Answer 10

Nepene Nep and Daron offered intriguing possibilities, in my view.

It could be the case that Presidents co-chair one of the Houses of Parliament, while the "Monarchs" co-chair another house. However, the nature of the "Monarchs"' and Presidents' job in such system would be essentially similar.

A good explanation - Monarchs are called this way due to some ancient tradition. Perhaps, there was an absolute monarchy a long time ago, but the times have changed. And yet, while people are willing to change the nature of their governance, they are unwilling to lose some of their traditions.

A crazy option, in my view, is that the Nation is a communist or otherwise totalitarian state. There is a quadrumvirate in power, made up of the "trusted comrades". However, the names of the public positions in this governing institution are made as a mockery of all the previous political regimes. Perhaps, the country had an absolute monarchy, which was overthrown in favour of the Republic, which was in turn overthrown in favour of a Marxist-Leninist Republic. The New Republic, as part of its propaganda, mocks the old regimes from every possible angle, including in how their own governing elites are to be named and/or treated. Of course, this mockery is nothing more than an elaborate, orchestrated ritual, which has to be completed perfectly according to certain unspoken rules. Or the Republican State Security Committee will swiftly intervene.

Answer 11

I certainly could imagine a state that had a King and Queen who were co-equal monarchs; they could divvy up responsibility over the "male sphere" and "female sphere" for example, which might or might not reflect traditional roles in the Western world (perhaps it is a simple as the King is the martial ruler, but was historically frequently "away" and so the Queen wielded the power at home).

Then, when "democracy" hit that country, they wanted to keep everything as traditional as possible - so they have two presidents, one in the "male" sphere and one in the "female" sphere, mirroring the King and Queen.

This might be a country with extremely well defined gender roles, for example, or simply one that is very tradition-bound. Lots of examples of those both in the real world and in Fantasy.

Answer 12

If it is your world, you decide why. I could see many reasons why a country might have both a/two monarch(s) and a/two president(s).

1. It is a relic of the transition to democracy

Maybe this country used to just have an Empress/Emperor pair of rulers, but when adopting a more democratic system they held on to having their royalty as well. Although the real world constitutional monarchies have decided to not adopt a president title and instead opting to have the political head of state be a Prime Minister, I could easily see how a country that already had a tradition of dual heads of state opting to have all of these.

2. They have different areas of responsibility

The Emperor and Empress might be the religious heads of state while the Presidents might be the secular heads of state. Think Pope vs King. Or maybe one set of rulers deal with internal matters while the other deal with external affairs.

3. They rule over different groups of the inhabitants

It might be that although the country is one state, there are different groups of people in the country, that are ruled by their own leaders. Although I don't think such a system has existed in the real world (the system of tribal government and federal government in USA is the closest I can think of, but with the difference of very unequal power structures), that shouldn't hold you back from inventing such a system for your story. I actually find this option very conceptually interesting. Imagine two peoples that share a geographical area, but have distinct traditions and distinct government. Neither control the other, they cohabitat (peacefully or not - that is up to your story).

4. For religious/philosophical reasons

Maybe that is what the religion dictates that they should do? Maybe their philosophical leanings towards duality extends to wanting both monarchs and presidents. There are many possibilities.

Whatever you decide, remember that how well this functions, whether the rulers actually are equal, whether they are supposed to be equal etc are all factors you can decide. Any combination could be interesting to explore. Some combinations are probably more suited for fantasy stories, others for other kinds of settings.

Answer 13

Historical circumstances - the country is just transitioning from the Ancien Régime to modernity, and got stuck somewhere halfway. Maybe it declared independence from a bigger country, declared itself to be a republilc, but the mother country insisted on keeping some ties and continuity.

For inspiration, look at Irish Free State. Since 1932 (the de facto full independence) the official head of state remained the UK monarch, but after 1937, there was also the president of the country (not to be confused with the president of the Executive Council, a position we'd call prime minister these days)

This was resolved only in 1948, when the UK monarch's (mostly symbolic by that time) role in Irish poliltics has been definitely abolished.

Answer 14

Term Limits

Your different leaders have different titles because they serve very different terms. The "presidents" are your typical democratically-elected leaders who serve relatively short terms and are eventually prevented from running for election again. The other leaders have earned the nickname "monarchs" because they are elected for life like a traditional King. All four rulers have equivalent powers and authorities, only their terms differ. In terms of actual leadership mechanics, I picture it somewhat like the board of directors that runs a company.

A system like this gives you some of the long-term stability of a monarchy while retaining some of the power of a democracy to replace ineffective leaders and tyrants. Elected leaders are a sort of snapshot of the values and principles of your nation at the time they were elected. A dual system like this would give you the freedom to adjust to changing societal conditions while making it difficult to abandon the history and traditions that allowed your nation to succeed in the first place. As a side benefit, it would also make your country slightly more resistant to takeover since a hostile, radical faction that wins the presidential elections would seize no more than half of the executive power.

Of course, a dual system like this also brings with it some of the problems with both systems of government, so your universe should have plenty of conflict to fuel plot development.

Answer 15

I'll stay away from trying to figure out exactly how this would actually work because I don't think it would, at least I don't think it would be a stable government at all. But instead, I will focus on your actual question which is

"I wonder why would a country have both a monarch, and a president"

I think the easiest answer and the most likely answer is "history"

Humans have invented all sorts of convoluted forms of government with subdivisions of power and geography and overlapping authorities. Most of these have come about because of some form of historical event or series of events.

I suggest reading about some of the more interesting ones if you want to come up with ideas for "how" the government ended up the way it is.

• Corolingian Empire
• The Papal States
• Habsburg Empire
• Holy Roman Empire
• Kingdom of Denmark
• European Union
• Union of African States

Answer 16

You might find it interesting to look up Sparta, which was ruled by two kings, from two separate lineages, and five elected ephors.

According to tradition, the two lines, the Agiads (Ἀγιάδαι, Agiadai) and Eurypontids (Εὐρυποντίδαι, Eurypontidai), were respectively descended from the twins Eurysthenes and Procles, the descendants of Heracles who supposedly conquered Sparta two generations after the Trojan War. The dynasties themselves, however, were named after the twins' grandsons, the kings Agis I and Eurypon, respectively. The Agiad line was regarded as being senior to the Eurypontid line.

[...according to Plutarch, the ephorate was born out of the necessity for leaders while the kings of Sparta were absent for long periods during the Messenian Wars. The ephors were elected by the popular assembly, and all citizens were eligible. The position of ephor was the only political office open to the whole damos (populace) between the ages of 30–60, so eligible Spartans highly sought after the position. They were forbidden to be re-elected and provided a balance for the two kings, who rarely co-operated. Plato called the ephors tyrants who ran Sparta as despots while the kings were little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history].

So maybe your kings could look after war, and the presidents peace (plus declaring war). This isn't two different from some Native American tribes, who had separate war and peace chiefs).