139 2/2019 On Stateform of Hungary between 1920 and 1944: Applicability of the Term „Monarchy without a King” Peter Takács * 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. Keywords: Stateform; constitutional history of Hungary; claim of Charles I of Austria (Karl I from the Dynasty Habsburg-Lothringen as emperor of Austria; Karl III as king of Bohemia; and Karl IV as king of Hungary) to the Hungarian throne; legal regulation of powers and com- petencies of the regent of Hungary between 1920 and 1944; the political meaning of stateform. 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 prob- lematic 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 re- gency 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 char- acter Those who employ the term face difficulties in establish- ing 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 1. General Meaning and Origin of the Term „Monarchy without a King” As for stateform, the term „monarchy without a king” carries in itself the sole implication that the throne remains unfilled in a particular state in the longer term This, namely the unfilled nature of the throne refers to some sort of anomaly in the case of monarchy as a stateform suggesting continuity and perpetu- ity (cf Le roi est mort, vive le roi) An unfilled throne in a monar- chy is an exceptional situation which – in case the person to fill the throne is known but cannot exercise his/her power – can be remedied by public law in various ways In the Middle Ages and in the Late Middle Ages such rem- edies included regency with a regent, or in some cases with a re- gency council. Regency as an institution allowed someone else to * Péter Takács, Professor of Jurisprudence and Theory of State, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary 1 Throughout this paper, the terms „stateform” and „form of state” (Germ: Staatsform, Czech: forma státu) are used to designate the public law structures that reflect and reinforce the most significant elements of political relations In this general sense, these forms – although they have several classifica- tions and typologies – have usually been categorized into two main classes („monarchy” and „republic”) since the 16 th century In the English literature this general meaning is sometimes also referred to as „form of government” (Germ: Regierungsform, Czech: forma vlády) 2 This usage was established in the 1930 s (see Rutter, Owen, Regent of Hungary. The Authorized Life of Admiral Nicholas Horthy. London: Rich and Cowan, 1939) and is still common today For the latter see, eg, Romsics, Ignác: Changing Image of Miklós Horthy, in: Vít, Michal – Baran, Magdalena M (eds), Transregional versus National Perspectives on Contemporary Central European History. Studies on the Building of Nation-States and Their Cooperation in the 20th and 21st Century. Stuttgart: Ibidem Press, 2017 pp 253–268 Different authors draw attention to the contradiction differently Helmut David Baer, for example, puts it in this way: „Thus Horthy was regent for the king – only Hungary had no king… Hungary in the Horthy period was tech- nically a monarchy It was a monarchy without a king, governed by a temporary regent whose position was permanent” See Baer, Helmut David, The Struggle of Hungarian Lutherans under Communism (Texas: A & M University Press, 2006) ch 1 10