The laws of succession preceded most monarchs, and a more powerful militarily nobleman still was an usurper if he attempted to seize the throne. In contrast to that, a dictator by definition seizes power in violation of the existing law of succession. So, monarchs are legitimate rulers and dictators are not.
Again, having four legs does not make a donkey a leopard nor vice versa.
Mind you, I do not automatically dislike all dictators. For example, General Kornilov (in 1917) was serving a higher purpose when he struck out against the Provisional Government (but, unfortunately failed); so was general Pinochet in Chile seizing power from Alliende. Right wing dictatorships tend to be at times the best solution for the country. But the attraction of monarchy is precisely in that it is legitimate, predictable and durable power of ownership of the national infrastructure, as opposed to the rented pseudo-ownership that occurs in a republic.
Sorry but you’re just plain wrong. The law of succession can ONLY exist IF you have a monarch. Saying it preceded them is just plain lying. The first of any chain of monarchs was ALWAYS a userper of some sort, that how you get power. That’s why your distinction between monarchs and dictator is quite simply a lie. They are the same thing. Stop lying. It’s pathetic.
Al monarchs are dictators, all people that are pro-monarchy are dictator apologists, all people that think monarchies help freedom are deluded liars. Good bye.