What does an absolute monarchy or dictatorship do when the king goes mad?

Question

I know this had to be one of many big issues in the whole dictator or monarchy government model where there's one supreme commander/ruler who is in and of itself the entire government and who can appoint people to take on roles for him.

If the King goes mad what happens then? You can tell the king he's mad, that's treason and one of the royals will execute you for such a threat. I'm sure even royals would not be able to tell the king he's mad.

You also can't do anything about it, there's no other system but him, he's the embodiment of the government so there's no real process to go around him and replace him.

And you can't lead an attack on him to force him off because then you're making immediate enemies with the entire army and guards.

As far as I can tell the only sole way to remove him would be to lead an attack after all his men or most of the country has no longer recognized his authority but by then, and to get that far alone, there's no telling the damage he could do. Even just a week of insanity, being allowed to do whatever he wishes, hundreds can die and the country could be in ruins well before that even happens.

What exactly did monarchies and dictatorships do in this situation which I presume was not that rare, how did they handle this, was there any way of fixing the situation before it completely gets out of control?

Answer 1

First, one needs to understand that no autocratic ruler rules alone. They always need key supporters. These key supporters might be called generals, dukes, ministers, cardinals, corporations, senators, advisors or something else, but fact is, whatever an autocratic ruler decides will only have effect when the supporters act on them.

Now what if the ruler becomes mad? Would they still support them? It depends on what kind of madness they have.

• They turn excentric, but are still effective rulers: There are dictators like François Duvalier who ruled Haiti from 1957 to 1971. He proclaimed himself a Voodoo god, claimed that one of his rivals transformed into a black dog and ordered every black dog in the country killed. But despite such crazy antics, they are still effective rulers. Any decisions they make which have actual impact are in accordance with the interests of their key holders. There is really no reason to replace such an autocrat. (Also, more often than not, such antics aren't a symptom of actual craziness, but rather an example of projecting power. They want to show that they can.)
• They stop caring about governing at all: There are also cases of autocrats whose mental illness makes them either unable to rule or simply no longer interested in doing so. For example, Charles II of Spain was born mentally disabled. This is actually a great thing for the supporters, because it means they can do whatever they want without the autocrat meddling with their affairs. Such a ruler might "officially" stay in power all their life, although the actual power is in the hands of their supporters.
• They become actively destructive: And then there are crazy autocrats who act in ways which actively harm their supporters. Such autocrats usually don't stay alive for long. A famous case is Roman emperor Caligula who wasted considerable amounts of money on pointless personal projects and (according to legend) insulted the senate by appointing his favorite horse a senator. When they had enough with his antics, he was murdered. Or to give a more historically proven example, Peter III, Tsar off Russia, who started his regency with stopping the seven year war (which Russia had almost won) and making liberal reforms the country just wasn't ready for. He was quickly replaced by his wife, (who then became known as Catherine the Great) and soon after died under mysterious circumstances.

Answer 2

It really depends. At one extreme, George III of Britain was mad for the last part of his reign, and the situation was resolved peacefully by installing his son as regent. At the other end of the scale, we have the examples of such dictators as Ceausescu who held on to power until overthrown by forces from within the country, or Saddam Hussein, whose madness brought down the wrath of a powerful enemy on his country.

Answer 3

In an absolute monarchy the succesion is usually taken care of, provided there is an heir, who is uncontested. So, in the case of insanity, the heir takes over as acting regent. The same procedure would be followed if the king died, and the heir is still a child, then a regent is appointed until the heir comes of age.

Dictatorship are generally weaker on the succession part, as the dynastic principle of monarchies does not stabilize the sitation . When Lenin died, there was an internal struggle for power, which turned out quite bloody. Thus, when a dictator is declared insane, the same procedure, or non-procedure, will be followed as if the dictator had died.

If the dictator or monarch, only gradually goes insane, it strongly depends on how the inner workings of government. When, Fidel Castro became increasingly ill, he was able to transfer power to his brother.

It very much depends on how the the absolute ruler goes mad, and how evil, with respect to country or population, this madness turnes out to be.

Hitler's Nero Decree was largely ignored, as the people who were expected to carry out the order were appalled by it, and could afford to disobey the order. However,one could argue whether Hitler was insane by that time. If a gone-mad dictator gives similar appalling orders, his subordinates might also agree to disobey the orders, or decide to remove the gone-mad dictator from power.

Answer 4

The television series Game of Thrones is set in a world shortly after this happens. Their solution was to wait until the mad king convinced his guards that he was mad. Then they killed him. Rebels then killed his eldest son, the son's wife, and her children. They missed two of his other children.

A lot of this assumes a monarch with unlimited power. Note that in practice, monarchs were often more limited. The constitutional monarchy has long precedent, but even before that, lords in aggregate were often the real power. The king needed the support of the nobility to actually do things. A mad king without the support of the nobility would simply be replaced.