In the first part of our survey of the world’s surviving monarchies, we encountered a largely familiar institution.
Europe’s kings, queens and princes overwhelmingly reign without governing. They open parliaments, receive ambassadors, attend ceremonies and embody the state while elected politicians exercise political power.
Travel beyond Europe and the picture changes dramatically.
Here we find an emperor whose dynasty traces its origins into legend; a king selected from among nine other monarchs; a Buddhist sovereign whose father voluntarily created a democracy; oil-rich sultans and emirs who still govern; an African king possessing extensive political authority; and another king who reigns constitutionally over a small mountain state.
If European monarchy has largely survived by surrendering political power, elsewhere the Crown can still be at the very centre of it.
Japan: the world’s oldest dynasty faces a very modern problem
Japan possesses the world’s only emperor.
Emperor Akihito began the twenty-first century on the Chrysanthemum Throne, having succeeded his father Hirohito in 1989.
By the 2010s, however, Akihito’s advancing age had created a problem. Japanese law did not provide a straightforward mechanism for imperial abdication.
Special legislation was therefore passed allowing him personally to step down.
On 30 April 2019 Akihito abdicated, becoming Emperor Emeritus. The following day his elder son became Emperor Naruhito, beginning Japan’s Reiwa era.
The Japanese Emperor does not govern. The post-war constitution describes him as the symbol of the state and the unity of the people.
Yet the dynasty faces perhaps the most serious succession problem of any major ceremonial monarchy.
Only males in the male line may inherit.
Naruhito has one child, Princess Aiko. Despite her popularity and position as the Emperor’s only daughter, she cannot succeed him.
The throne instead passes to Naruhito’s younger brother, Crown Prince Akishino, and then to Akishino’s son Prince Hisahito.
Hisahito is the only male of his generation eligible for the throne.
Japan has therefore created a remarkable contradiction. The monarchy itself remains deeply embedded in national life, but the law governing it has reduced a dynasty stretching back many centuries to a remarkably narrow line.
The future: monarchy itself looks secure. Male-only succession does not. At some stage Japan may have to choose between altering the Imperial House Law or finding another method of increasing the number of eligible male dynasts.
Thailand: the monarchy that can now be questioned
King Bhumibol Adulyadej was already a legendary figure when the century began.
He had occupied the Thai throne since 1946 and eventually became one of the longest-reigning monarchs in history.
His death in October 2016 ended a reign of 70 years.
His son succeeded as King Maha Vajiralongkorn, Rama X.
The change of sovereign also exposed a change in Thai society.
Thailand possesses strict lèse-majesté laws protecting the monarch and other senior royals from insult. For decades, open criticism of the monarchy was largely absent from public political discussion.
Then came the youth-led protests of 2020.
Demonstrators did not merely demand political reform. Some openly called for reform of the monarchy itself — something almost unimaginable during much of Bhumibol’s reign.
The future: the Crown retains powerful institutional support and a substantial royalist constituency. But the assumption that the monarchy must stand beyond public criticism has clearly weakened.
Thailand may therefore prove one of the most interesting tests of whether a politically influential monarchy can adapt to a younger and less deferential population.
Cambodia: the king who cannot choose his successor
Cambodia’s monarchy is unusual because its king is not simply succeeded by his eldest child.
King Norodom Sihanouk, one of the twentieth century’s most extraordinary royal figures, had returned to the throne when the Cambodian monarchy was restored in 1993.
In 2004 he abdicated.
A Royal Council of the Throne then selected his son Norodom Sihamoni as the new King.
Cambodia’s constitution declares that the King “shall reign, but shall not govern”. More unusually, the sovereign does not appoint his own heir.
When the throne becomes vacant, the Royal Council selects an eligible prince from the appropriate royal bloodlines.
Sihamoni is unmarried and has no children, but this does not create the dynastic emergency it would in Britain or Japan.
The future: the monarchy has a constitutional mechanism for continuing without direct father-to-son succession. What nobody can say with certainty is who Cambodia’s next king will be.
Bhutan: the monarchy that created a democracy
Bhutan offers perhaps the most remarkable example of royal reform this century.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck could have remained an immensely powerful monarch.
Instead, he deliberately began transferring power away from the throne.
In December 2006 he abdicated in favour of his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck.
Bhutan subsequently held its first parliamentary elections in 2008 and adopted a new constitution establishing democratic constitutional monarchy.
This was not a revolution forced upon a reluctant king. The monarchy itself drove the transformation.
The result has been striking. The young Fifth King has retained enormous personal prestige despite — or perhaps partly because of — the Crown’s willingness to surrender political authority.
The future: exceptionally strong. Bhutan demonstrates one of monarchy’s oldest survival techniques: reform before reform is forced upon you.
Malaysia: the country that elects its king
Malaysia possesses a constitutional system unique in the world.
Nine Malaysian states have hereditary rulers. Every five years those rulers elect one of themselves to serve as the federal Yang di-Pertuan Agong, usually following an established rotational order.
Malaysia therefore has an elected king chosen from among hereditary kings and sultans.
The present sovereign, Sultan Ibrahim of Johor, began his five-year term in 2024.
The office is more than ceremonial decoration.
Malaysia’s turbulent politics since 2018 have repeatedly produced uncertain parliamentary majorities. At such moments the King has played an important constitutional role in determining which political leader is capable of commanding confidence in parliament.
The future: highly secure. Malaysia has effectively made monarchy part of the machinery holding its federation together.
Brunei: preparing for the end of an enormous reign
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah has ruled Brunei since 1967.
That means his reign began before the Moon landings and has continued through almost the entire modern history of the small, oil-rich state.
Unlike Europe’s ceremonial sovereigns, Hassanal Bolkiah remains both monarch and head of government, exercising extensive political authority.
The succession, however, is well prepared.
His eldest son, Crown Prince Al-Muhtadee Billah, has been heir since 1998 and has accumulated substantial governmental experience.
The future: dynastically straightforward. The more interesting question is whether Brunei’s highly centralised political system changes once Hassanal Bolkiah’s exceptionally long personal reign finally ends.
The Middle East: where kings still govern
Nowhere is monarchy more politically significant than in the Middle East.
Here the question is often not whether royal families can survive as ceremonial institutions, but how hereditary government adapts to rapidly changing economies and societies.
Jordan: the Hashemite balancing act
King Abdullah II succeeded his father, King Hussein, in February 1999.
His reign therefore spans virtually the entire period we are considering.
Jordan’s King possesses considerably greater authority than a European constitutional monarch. The Crown has important roles in government formation, legislation, foreign policy and the armed forces.
Abdullah’s eldest son, Crown Prince Hussein, has become increasingly prominent and is clearly being prepared for eventual succession.
The Hashemite dynasty also possesses a particular historical and religious prestige, tracing its ancestry to the Prophet Muhammad.
The future: the monarchy has demonstrated formidable resilience. Its continuing challenge is balancing royal authority, demands for political reform, economic difficulties and the instability of the surrounding region.
Morocco: reform without surrendering the Crown’s power
King Mohammed VI succeeded his father, Hassan II, in 1999.
The greatest political challenge of his reign arrived with the Arab Spring in 2011.
Protests prompted constitutional reform and greater authority for elected government. Yet the King retained extensive powers and an important religious position as Commander of the Faithful.
His heir, Crown Prince Moulay Hassan, born in 2003, is now an adult and increasingly visible in public life.
Morocco therefore possesses both a clear succession and a dynasty deeply rooted in the history of the state.
The future: probably secure. The more difficult question is how far political authority will gradually move from palace to parliament over future generations.
Bahrain: the emir who became king
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa succeeded his father as Emir of Bahrain in 1999.
In 2002 the country was formally declared a kingdom and Hamad became King of Bahrain.
The defining crisis of his reign came in 2011, when large anti-government demonstrations erupted during the Arab Spring.
The protests and their suppression exposed deep political and sectarian divisions which have continued to shape Bahraini politics.
The King’s eldest son, Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, has meanwhile accumulated considerable governing experience and has served as Prime Minister since 2020.
The future: succession looks secure. The long-term question concerns the political system surrounding the dynasty rather than the identity of the next monarch.
Qatar: passing power early
In 2013 Qatar did something highly unusual.
Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani voluntarily handed power to his 33-year-old son, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.
It was not an abdication forced by revolution, illness or scandal. It was a planned generational transfer.
Under Tamim, Qatar has become one of the most internationally visible small states in the world, hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup while using its wealth and diplomatic reach to become an important regional intermediary.
The future: strong. Qatar demonstrated that even a ruling monarchy can use voluntary abdication to achieve controlled renewal.
Oman: from uncertainty to a Crown Prince
For years, Oman possessed one of the world’s most intriguing succession problems.
Sultan Qaboos bin Said had ruled since 1970. He had no children and publicly designated no successor.
Oman’s constitution provided an unusual solution: the royal family would attempt to agree upon a successor after his death. If they failed, a sealed letter left by Qaboos would be opened.
When Qaboos died in January 2020, the royal family chose to open the letter and accepted his designated successor, his cousin Haitham bin Tariq.
The transition was remarkably smooth.
Haitham then changed the system.
A new Basic Law established a formal Crown Prince for the first time, making the Sultan’s eldest son, Theyazin bin Haitham, heir.
The future: much more predictable than it appeared at the beginning of 2020.
Saudi Arabia: the great generational transition
Saudi royal succession has undergone a fundamental transformation.
King Fahd died in 2005 and was succeeded by his half-brother Abdullah.
Abdullah died in 2015 and another brother, Salman, became King.
This reflected the pattern that had governed Saudi succession for decades: the Crown passed principally among the many sons of the kingdom’s founder, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud.
But that generation could not rule forever.
In 2017 King Salman appointed his son Mohammed bin Salman Crown Prince, replacing his cousin Mohammed bin Nayef.
The change effectively moved the centre of royal power from the founder’s sons towards his grandsons.
Mohammed bin Salman has subsequently become the dominant figure in Saudi government, overseeing enormous economic and social changes while his father remains King.
The future: the next succession appears straightforward. The more fascinating question is what happens afterwards. Saudi Arabia must eventually establish a durable pattern for succession among the vast number of princes descended from Ibn Saud.
Kuwait: Crown and parliament in conflict
Kuwait has experienced several royal transitions this century.
Emir Jaber al-Ahmad died in 2006. His successor, Saad, was seriously ill and was removed after only days, allowing Sabah al-Ahmad to become Emir.
Sabah died in 2020 and was succeeded by his brother Nawaf. Nawaf died in 2023 and another brother, Meshal al-Ahmad, became Emir.
But Kuwait’s greater story concerns the relationship between monarchy and parliament.
For decades Kuwait possessed the Gulf’s most assertive elected legislature, resulting in repeated clashes between MPs and royal-appointed governments.
In 2024 Emir Meshal dissolved parliament and suspended parts of the constitution for up to four years.
The future: politically uncertain. Kuwait’s question is whether its distinctive tradition of parliamentary politics ultimately reasserts itself or whether royal government becomes permanently stronger.
United Arab Emirates: seven monarchies in one country
The United Arab Emirates is not really one monarchy.
It is seven hereditary monarchies joined together.
Each emirate has its own ruler. Collectively those rulers form the Federal Supreme Council and elect the President of the UAE.
In practice, the ruler of Abu Dhabi has always held the presidency, while the ruler of Dubai traditionally serves as Prime Minister.
The UAE’s founding President, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, died in 2004 and was succeeded by his son Khalifa.
After Khalifa’s death in 2022, the seven rulers elected his brother Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan President.
The future: extremely secure. Hereditary rule is built into the federal structure of the country itself.
Africa: two monarchies, two completely different systems
Only two internationally recognised sovereign monarchies remain in Africa.
They demonstrate opposite approaches to kingship.
Lesotho: a constitutional Crown above politics
King Letsie III has reigned since 1996.
Lesotho has endured repeated political crises, unstable governments and tensions involving the armed forces, but the King has generally remained outside ordinary political competition.
His constitutional position resembles European monarchy far more closely than that of Africa’s other king.
The future: reasonably secure. In a politically turbulent system, a non-partisan monarch can provide a useful symbol of continuity precisely because he does not personally govern.
Eswatini: Africa’s last absolute monarchy
Travel east from Lesotho and the picture changes completely.
King Mswati III has ruled Eswatini since 1986 and marked 40 years on the throne in 2026.
He possesses extensive political authority and Eswatini is widely described as Africa’s last absolute monarchy.
In 2018 the King changed the country’s international name from Swaziland to Eswatini.
Far more consequential were the major pro-democracy protests that erupted in 2021. Demonstrators demanded political reform and restrictions upon royal authority, while the security response attracted international criticism.
Criticism has also focused upon royal expenditure and inequality.
The future: Eswatini is arguably among the monarchies facing the greatest pressure to change its form.
That need not mean abolition. European history offers another possibility: the dynasty could preserve the Crown by surrendering much of its political authority.
The question is whether reform comes voluntarily or only after greater confrontation.
Tonga: the Pacific kingdom
Tonga is Polynesia’s surviving indigenous kingdom.
King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, who had reigned since 1965, died in 2006 and was succeeded by his son George Tupou V.
His reign coincided with a major political transformation.
Following unrest and increasing pressure for democratic government, the monarchy relinquished much of its direct political authority. Tonga moved towards a system in which an elected parliament and prime minister exercised greater control.
George Tupou V died unexpectedly in 2012 and was succeeded by his younger brother, King Tupou VI.
The Crown nevertheless retains considerably greater social and cultural prominence than many European monarchies.
The future: likely secure. Tonga provides another demonstration of the paradox of modern kingship: surrendering political power may be one of the most effective ways of retaining the throne.
Which monarchies are actually vulnerable?
Looking across these countries reveals that asking whether “monarchy” has a future is almost meaningless.
There is no single modern monarchy.
Emperor Naruhito of Japan possesses no governing authority.
King Mswati III of Eswatini possesses a great deal.
Malaysia elects its King from among hereditary rulers.
Cambodia selects its King from eligible princes.
Bhutan’s monarchy deliberately created a democratic political system.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown remains at the centre of government.
The United Arab Emirates is effectively a federation constructed from seven hereditary principalities.
Their vulnerabilities are consequently very different.
Japan’s problem is dynastic. Its monarchy is popular enough to survive, but its succession law is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.
Thailand’s problem is political and generational. Younger Thais have demonstrated a willingness to question an institution that previous generations were expected to treat with extraordinary reverence.
Eswatini’s problem is democratic. Opposition is directed not merely at royal personalities but at the concentration of political power in the Crown.
The Gulf monarchies face another test. Enormous wealth, dynastic networks and control of government make their immediate survival highly likely. But they must govern increasingly educated, technologically connected and economically ambitious societies whose expectations will continue to evolve.
And then there is Bhutan.
Its example may ultimately be the most instructive of all.
The Bhutanese monarchy surrendered power before a revolution demanded it and emerged with its prestige enhanced.
That is a lesson European royal houses learnt over centuries.
The secret of royal survival
Since 2000 the world’s monarchies have changed far more than their ancient titles might suggest.
Japan has witnessed its first imperial abdication in more than two centuries.
Bhutan has transformed itself from royal government into parliamentary democracy.
Qatar has used voluntary abdication to pass authority to a younger generation.
Oman has created a formal Crown Prince.
Saudi Arabia has begun the enormous transition from the sons of its founder to his grandsons.
Thailand has seen public demands for royal reform once considered almost unthinkable.
Tonga has transferred much of the monarch’s political authority to elected government.
Yet remarkably few monarchies have actually disappeared.
The major exception among sovereign states connected to our survey is Barbados, which became a republic in 2021—peacefully, constitutionally and without leaving the Commonwealth.
That tells us something important.
The great threat to monarchy in the twenty-first century may not be revolution. It is irrelevance.
A monarchy that can persuade its people that it provides stability, identity or constitutional value can survive with remarkably little political power.
A monarchy that continues to exercise substantial authority must demonstrate why hereditary rule remains legitimate.
And a monarchy that can do neither will eventually face difficult questions.
The crowns of the world have survived revolutions, wars, empires, dictatorships and extraordinary social change.
Their great talent has never been remaining the same.
It has been knowing when to change.