This is /monarchy/, not r/monarchism.We say monarchy here>how best to prevent shitty successors like Commodus from happening
Commodus gets his reputation in part because Romans disliked royalism and hereditary succession for the time, and Commodus is epitome of why. But there were other instances besides Commodus where Roman Emperors favored their own son, like the Byzantine with instances of Emperors making their sons as co-emperors like a loophole.
I only say that because a large bunch of people dislike hereditary succession. Imo, it's part of the idea and always has been an expectation that a royal monarch will favor his own offspring as heir since ancient times. >My biggest concern about monarchism is succession
Another /fascist/ anon really has a dislike for hereditary succession, but for your case I'll tell you that plenty of other people on this board and throughout favor electoral monarchy and other forms of succession. It's not always the standard of primogeniture.>How would you make sure that nothing like that would happen?
In truth, if you want a monarchy that is really a monarchy in a sense, there will always be a little bit of the tyrannical side as you call it. I have always felt that the fear of tyranny should not outweigh the good of monarchy, but this will undeniably happen when a monarch is in charge.
Rome from the Julio-Claudian gets that bad reputation for wild monarchs. But those are also some of my favorite imperial monarchs.>prevent
Instances where the monarch is mentally ill or obviously unfit calls for a regency, or they are disqualified. Child royals live with regents taking the role, and sometimes their parent oversees it.
There's also the absolutist solution–if the order of succession and law lead to someone who the monarch doesn't want for the throne–the monarch could choose someone else. I had this conversation before, but a noteworthy example of this is kind of thing is Kim Jong Il choosing Kim Jong Un instead of Kim Jong-nam.