What is the difference between an absolute monarch and a dictator? - Or...: what distinguishes a King from a Supreme Leader?

[Iwasamwillbe]

There may be a difference in style of appearance, but in terms of *real* power, it would seem that an absolute monarch and a dictator of any sort (from military dictator to communist dictator) are the exact same thing.

 

[Rand /pol/]

Kingship is hereditary dictatorship (usually) isn't.

 

[Marco Fucko]

Dictators grab power because they can, Kings operate off the pomp and circumstance of religion and social acceptability.

 

[Niggernerd]

Kings have a pointy hat and a gay cape.
Dictators are dicks. Heh dicktator

 

[Damn Near]

Kingship is hereditary dictatorship (usually) isn't.

Not at all, plenty of kings were usurped/deposed and replaced

edit: terminology-wise, "king" has a less negative association than "dictator"

 

[Clipper]

They're nearly identical in terms of power. Some dictators have passed their position to their eldest son, like the North Korean regime.

 

[Harnessed Carcass]

Dictator: bit more honest about it.
Absolute Monarch: Dictator but dishonest and people, for whatever reason, trust and believe in us.

 

[Eigengrau]

Dictator: bit more honest about it.
Absolute Monarch: Dictator but dishonest and people, for whatever reason, trust and believe in us.

No dictator has called himself a dictator for the last 100 years, they usually style themselves as a president or leader of the military.

 

[mindlessobserver]

A Royal title is in theory something independent of the person who happens to hold the title. Hence the phrase "the king is dead, long live the king". Dictators on the other hand tend to invest all their sovereignty in themselves personally rather then the state itself.

 

[Coke Pope]

Dictators: high-test bald manlets that have cool moustaches and chain-smoke; they rule thanks to the Social Contract, the self-interest of a deontological oligarchy, cult of personality or just because 'Might Makes Right' and everyone is afraid.
Weapons of choice: gulags, extremely long speeches, helicopter rides, antisocial personality disorder and gas chambers.

Absolute Monarchs: inbred effeminate faggots that are fat as fuck and don't even know how to read, while dictators only get to wear funny hats during military parades, absolute monarchs get to wear funny hats every day all day (SAD!), they have lower lifespans than dictators due to haemophilia, diabetes type 2 and gout but they can respawn as their oldest male son; they rule thanks to Divine Right, property rights or tradition.
Weapons of choice: Famines, impalement, Great Smog, colera outbreaks, delusional disorder and heavy inbreeding.

 

[Emperor Julian]

The State is seen an extension of the king in an absolute monarchy whereas a dictator is meerly the master of the state.

I'd also suggest that a lot of modern dictators are bassically kings while maintaining the pathetic pretence they're not

 

[Kamov Ka-52]

Divine right. A king's authority comes "down" from a higher authority (usually God in the Western world) and a dictator's ostensibly comes "up" from the people.

Also, the title "dictator" was invented by the Romans during the Republic era as a way of investing of investing absolute decision-making power in an individual without calling them a "king" because the Romans hated kings.

 

[Token Weeaboo]

Dictators are dicks. Heh dicktator

Dick tators, so dick potatoes right?

 

[L50LasPak]

An absolute monarch is what I would describe as a kind of dictator, but I would not describe all dictators as absolute monarchs. The reason they're called "absolute" refers to the fact that they successfully transitioned their societies away from a feudal model of rule and instuted a form of government that gave them more centralized control over their country. To the average shitheel peasant this didn't mean much of a change in terms of your rights or freedoms since under feudalism your local lord had just as much right to fuck your life over.

In general I think absolute monarchs were probably more discerning than the average dictator, at least the older ones. Your average tinpot dictator is just a dickbag who knows his country is a shitheap that nobody wants to live in, so he's just gonna have fun and play with his golden AK47s and hookers at his people's expense. Monarchs had codes and rules of ettiqute, as well as responsibilities that a fair number of them genuinely believed they had to uphold. I think they took the job a lot more seriously than popular opinion gives them credit for. The reason so many of them lost their minds is probably the immense pressure of having to run a centralized country all on your own in an age before speedy communication. There were also many absolute monarchs who abused their people of course, but conventional dictators almost always turn out to be awful, self-serving people. Absolute Monarchs at least occasionally produced a badass who genuinely gave a fuck.

 

[An Account]

Dictators and (absolute) monarchs are both examples of an autocrat. A monarch is a theological autocrat who claims his power comes from a supernatural entity, while a dictator is a secular autocrat who uses military force and, often times, charisma and popularity among the common people to gain and maintain power.

Both are tyrants and should be shot dead tbh.

 

[La Luz Extinguido]

Monarchs are openly gay, dictators only secretly.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost]

Well in a traditional Christian sense a Monarch is appointed by God to rule over his/her people, and so the major benefit of being a monarch over being a dictator is that the classical vestiges of the institutions and hierarchic values of the country are all geared towards justifying your absolute rule as something that is not just a physical practicability but also something which has a cosmic ordainment. While that doesn't have much value now in our modern secular society, in the older and much more religiously faith based societies of the past that sort of sanctification carried with it real clout and responsibility, because it meant that the decisions of that person straddled the line between the physical and the metaphysical, the mortal world and that of the divine, and therefore gave the Monarch a level of inscrutability at least among there common subjects.

A dictator unless they too then latch on to the vestiges of power and make themselves part of that institution hold power merely by organisational, military, or political means and are more open towards levels of criticism from all members of the population, especially from other members of the ruling class.

 

[Aria]

A dictator seizes power and a monarch has power passed on to the new king.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

dictators are psychopathic by their very nature. This is because they want power, and people who want power aren't the type of people you want to have power. This is also true with democracy, like elected officials literally have the same personality type as dictator strongmen. I have no idea why people think that the type of people who lead democracies are any different from those who run dictatorships. People think that only communists/fascists have that archetype, Woodrow Wilson is a liberal dictator.

The difference is that monarchs don't necessarily want to rule so they're better rulers

 

[Secret Asshole]

Monarchs are more incesty. Dictators are more rapey.