Does the argument that Arab monarchies are more stable than Arab republics hold in the wake of the Arab uprisings since 2011? Before the regime change in Tunisia it was monarchies – rather than republics – that were seen as allowing for greater political liberalization. Since 2011, however, republican regimes have witnessed both greater probabilities of regime changes and of democratization in the wake of transition. In contrast, most monarchies have remained stable and have witnessed generally fewer protests than their republican neighbors. In explaining this difference in outcomes the notion that monarchical regimes are more ‘flexible’ and innovative has been contrasted with the notion that since monarchies are predominantly petroleum rentier states, wealth explains the different trajectories of the post-2011 Arab uprisings – and that wealth may buy short-run stability but will they eventually face the same challenges as their neighbors. Have the theoretical tools in Middle East social science caught up with events? In exploring these contrasts, the path-dependent notions of the authoritarian survival literature have been challenged by the notions of political opportunities and networks of the social movement literature. Path-dependencies explain authoritarian survival because they have structured the formal and informal rules of the political game in such ways to empower some actors over others. Stability is thus at the heart of explanations in this line of research. In contrast, contentious politics approaches highlight the role rules as political opportunities for oppositional groups to challenge incumbent regimes. Even small changes in elite alignments are seen within this SMT inspired research as possibilities that opposition movements can use to mobilize their followers – let alone larger changes such as opportunities for elections and greater representation. The networks of opposition mobilization – often under the radar of both regime repression and scholarly attention – have resurfaced given the new repertories of public protest that have emerged. To better explain monarchical ‘flexibility’ however, we must synthesize the new institutionalist and social movement theory based explanations for this resilience. It is important to emphasize that while regimes have been structured in path-dependent manners, it is how they have shaped political constraints and opportunities as well as influenced the development of certain types of social networks over others that deserves our attention. Thus, we must work to synthesize institutionalism and social movement theory based explanations in order to account for the survival – and the potential fall – of the monarchs of the Arab world.