The monarchical system of inheritance of power, polished over the centuries, seems to be solid and reliable. "God's anointed", if no one claims to take his place, there is nothing to worry about - scandalous resignations, impeachment and other troubles (unlike the elected head of government or state) do not threaten him.
Know for yourself, sit on the throne until the end of time, and if you get bored - transferred royal duties along with regalia to the heir and enjoy a well-deserved rest! In most cases, this is exactly what happens (a very recent example is the “resignation” of the Queen of the Netherlands), but there is something called a “dynastic crisis”, and this phenomenon can cut down the tree of the most powerful and eminent monarchy to the root … What kind of misfortune is this, why such an expression reminiscent of a disappointing medical diagnosis?
Dynastic crisis is, in a nutshell, the absence of a successor. The same heir to the throne that, having become a full-fledged king (king,emperor, sultan, etc.), will not allow the royal dynasty to be cut short, to which he himself belongs. But there are a great many reasons why this smooth transfer of power may not take place, only one in any case remains immutable - such a situation always brings chaos and confusion with it, and in some cases calls into question the very existence of the state, suddenly left without a supreme masters.
How, for example, would the fate of the empire of Alexander the Great have been if this Macedonian king, who became the ruler of numerous lands and peoples, had taken 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 were interrupted at once: both the modest Macedonian, whose crown was inherited by Alexander, and the one whose founder he became; it ended with him.
And here is an example of how the dynastic crisis threw another empire into confusion - the British. In 1936, according to all the rules, King Edward VIII came to the throne, but he did not reign for long, some 10 months, and then abdicated in favor of his younger brother (the father of the current Queen Elizabeth). This was preceded by a grandiose scandal, since the reason for everything was a woman - not only a foreigner, but also a divorced one. What a horror for good old England! Edward could not marry her in the rank of king, but he did not want to leave her, being a gentleman,preferring to give up the throne.
The definition of a 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 by artists and works of playwrights. However, this is another, no less interesting topic, replete with the most unexpected plots - both tragic and truly comedic.
And as long as monarchies exist, as long as their fate is decided by the Great, Terrible (and sometimes Ridiculous) dynastic crisis, these plots will not be exhausted.
