Most Middle Eastern countries had monarchies up until relatively recently. While borders changed, Iran had Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi (that was one great monarch... Shame he got deposed, Israel would be having a much easier time), Iraq had Faisal II. Their descendants could be reinstated, there are still royalists in Iran, though they're persecuted by the current government. Hashemites (Faisal II was one of them) could also potentially have a claim to Syria. The problem with Iraqi royalty is that the main line was all murdered. In general, after the colonial period, most Arab states became kingdoms. Descendants of those kings could, perhaps, still be found. Now that I searched around, this doesn't look as hopeful as I thought (Iraqi revolutionaries were quite through with exterminating the royal family, as it turns out), but perhaps there are still some of them left.
So Monarchs are just handed power because of their good looks?
So what you're telling me here is that the difference between a Monarch and a Dictator is that the Monarch is the child of a Dictator. Not that there is anything intrinsically different.
Generally, monarchs are born into long-running dynasties. A monarch isn't a child of a dictator, he's a child of a long line of past rulers. This is also why they're handed power. Not because of their good looks, but also not because they carve it. Technically, any monarch will be a descendant of a "dictator" (excluding those in clan systems), but this is only because in ancient times, somebody had to start the dynasty. This doesn't matter, though. What matters is that they've come from a long line of people who ruled the land before them.
Whereas Monarchs will despise every moment in which they are forced to exercise power?
No, but they'll only see it as what is really is: A means to an end. Indeed, a monarch who doesn't like ruling wouldn't be much good. But it's important not to rule for the sake of ruling, but for the good of one's country. Someone raised into power, interacting with more experienced rulers on a daily basis will likely be taught about responsibility.
Last I checked, military service is still more or less required in some of the more successful monarchies around.
It's true that many monarchs, both in the East and West serve in the military. However, it's never their "primary" occupation. A dictator is generally a long-time military leader, while a prince will only serve long enough to understand how the military really works (a crucial skill for any ruler). Which brings us to:
Yes. Usually one that is much worse (i. e. no experience of hardship, no experience in dealing with common folk).
Military service often provides that to princes, and while they do experience less hardships than most people, a good ruler will ensure that his descendants aren't completely detached from the common folk. Military service does that to a degree, college education does this, too (though in a different areas). All in all, royals seem to have a pretty good grasp of how their domains work.
Whereas Monarchs are paragons of higher education?
Regardless of them being any good in their college, the receive kind of education most dictators simply do not have. This is what I've been talking about. Dictators are, in most cases, not prepared in the slightest for ruling a country, while most royals know well in advance that they're going to do so, and get appropriate education.
And Monarchs are completely immune to the adoration of the masses all of a sudden?
Well, it doesn't seem to go into their heads nearly as much as it does into dictators' ones. Perhaps it's that they're used to it, considering their parents and everyone around them are essentially celebrities. It's good to have some "customary" adoration for the monarch, and if the monarch in question is worth this respect, then people likely wouldn't mind. If he isn't, then he's in trouble anyway, from both family, other rulers and his own people. It seems to be pretty well understood, I suppose it's common knowledge that if a monarch has honest, unenforced respect of his people, then he's going to have a lot easier time ruling them.
Something that no monarch in history has ever done, I'm sure.
Quite the contrary, some of the most successful ones resorted to manipulation, especially when it came to other royals. But they were dedicated to their country, not themselves. Indeed, for a long time, a monarch and the country were considered one and the same. See Hamlet, where the King of Norway is just called "Norway". There's a similar sentiment among English aristocrats, they're often referred to by the name of their estate. Monarchs are hardly immune to narcissism, of course, but it's not a given. For a dictator, narcissism is almost necessary to gain power in the first place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a war a couple decades ago that got started because one monarch sought more power? You know, a little, hardly remarkable incident called WORLD WAR ONE?
You're very, very wrong. By stating "WWI got started because a monarch got power-hungry" you're oversimplifying
a lot. It got started due to a mighty political mess that was Europe at the time. There was far more to it than power plays. A quagmire of alliances, treaties, obligations of all sorts, power plays and diplomatic meddling made Europe of the time a powder keg, which was lit finally lit in Sarajevo.
Yes, there is. One is an autocratic dictator who rose to power out of their own means, the other is an autocratic dictator who has had power handed to him from his parents. Both are autocratic Dictators.
And... you missed the whole point. Your last sentence indicates you're completely unaware just how much of a difference this makes. A king thinks, acts and rules differently from a dictator. Yes, they're both autocrats. That's where similarities end.
What is North Korea, then? By your own definition, it is a monarchy.
Yes, it is. And the strangest, most pathological instance in the world. The first ruler was a dictator, but he then started a dynasty molded into his own image. By this point, it has many traits of a monarchy, but twisted in a really weird way. It's peculiar in that it's a horrible, yet oddly stable place. It's incompetently ran, but at the same time, it's also powerful and threatening. It shouldn't have lasted, not as long as it did, but here it is. I can't say if Kim dynasty produces geniuses, morons or madmen, but it's clearly an unique phenomenon. I wouldn't really compare it to monarchies, dictatorships, or anything else for that matter. It's a unique case kept up by a combination of it's geopolitical situation, culture and a lot of brainwashing.
