There is plenty of Historical precedent for a regency in monarchies. It's not necessarily a departure from the constitution, and in fact I cannot think of an enduring monarchic regime that has not had regency periods, that is, periods when someone rules in the stead of a nominal sovereign.
> plenty of Historical precedent for a regency in monarchies
MBS isn't acting as a regent, though. Salman remains the formal head of state.
Dragonwriter made a compelling point, however, in Salman having formally delegated a lot of powers to MBS. So maybe MBS isn't a tyrant, though it's difficult to argue either Salman or MBS are absolute monarchs at this time in practice. (Their "crown" retains absolute power. But that's slightly, and very meaningfully, different.)
So MBS is a prince with governing authority in an absolute monarchy. The position is grooming for he is the heir apparent. It would appear that what he decides - such as building a desert boondoggle to transfer cash to supporters - is not signed off by anyone. He makes it so by fiat. Semantic excursions are interesting but seem to have carried us in a wide circle around the point that started this thread.
