Abstract
The official stateform of Hungary between 1920 and 1944 was "monarchy". Since she did not have a king for a long time, however, it is often interpreted, even in academic analyses, in a way that it was, in fact, a kingdom with an unspecified monarch, viz without a king that could have been determined. At the level of stateforms, this ambivalent situation of a "kingless kingdom" is expressed by the category "monarchy without a king". Some legal scholars consider this category to be one of the particular variants of monarchy, while others argue that it might be conceived at a certain point on the scale between the two main types of stateforms, namely between monarchy and republic. This paper analyzes the origin of the term "monarchy without a king", its meaning in public law and its interpretation within the framework of Hungarian legal history. In the latter respect, it raises the questions whether the term can be used to define and characterize the Hungarian stateform in the Horthy era, and if so, what specific meaning it conveys. The term "monarchy without a king" is a denomination of a special stateform . 1 As it suggests something incompatible with the nature of monarchy, some scholars consider it to be a problematic category . Thus, the stateform and form of government of Hungary between 1920 and 1944 are called "regency" in the English literature, 2 even at the price that the actual Hungarian situation did not correspond to the traditional concept of regency . It can be argued that a monarchy without a king is neither a real monarchy nor a (real) republic . Therefore, some do not employ this term arguing that it is semantically incorrect and even misleading . Others only use it between quotation marks in order to emphasize its unreal, fictional or even illusionary character . Those who employ the term face difficulties in establishing its precise meaning for a specific state . Furthermore, many argue that it has a pejorative and malicious connotation, which indicates some criticism already at the terminological level . The criticism lays in the assertion that the term "monarchy without a king" cannot be used to define stateform . I discuss this view below .
Showing the abstract — retrieve the full paper via the Exa API.