Someone (I'm too lazy to look back for who it was) said, in part:

a dictator has seized power by might of his own arms while a king's power is by virtue of one of his ancestors having seized power by might of his arms years ago?

WRONG, on both counts!

Julius Caesar was assassinated because of the fear of his becoming--what, a dictator? No. A king.

He was a dictator, and I would say a benign one. The office--and it was not just an invidious characterization, but an office--was what might be called a constitutional one in the Roman system. When the City was in dangerous times it was possible for the Senate to make some well-qualified person extraordinary powers, with the TITLE of dictator. But by their system, a dictator's term of office had a time set for expiry (say six months or a year), and could be ended sooner if the dictator was able to dispose of the emergency sooner. Julius Caesar was such an appointed dictator, with extreme and extraordinary powers. I forget the nature of the state emergency which called for his appointment. He seems to have been doing fine with the emergency, but he was "ambitious", a populist crowd-pleaser, as the charge went against him, and some were afraid that he was going to make himself a king. Rome had, in earlier times, had kings, and the idea was absolutely unacceptable.

Now, as to actual kings, England (or maybe it was Britain by this time) at least once, and perhaps more, invited a properly royal personage to come in and fill the post of king for them. No strength of arms involved, either of the new king or his forbears, at least as far as England was concerned.

Dave Oesterreich