Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
We should have monarchies but not in the facet that they're currently in. They're currently garbage tier constitutional monarchies with a legislative branch and what not. At that point they resemble a democratic republic more than an actual monarchy.
There's several reasons monarchies are superior.
1. A permanent leader is better than a temporary one.
A King or a Dictator are often going to be passing their position and their property aka the country, to a relative. Regardless of who that relative is, if he cares about his family he will attempt to leave the country in the best shape possible. The same way you would try to not put a lot of wear and tear on your car if you planned on giving it to your child. The same logic is applied here. However, this does assume that the Monarch would be educated enough to realize that plundering your country via things like high taxation will slow economic growth and leave less for your heir. What the government takes now cannot be taken later. This assumes that the Monarch cares at all for their family and that they understand basic economics, but if this true then it would almost certainly be superior to other forms in government in economic aspects. The issue with current leaders is that these leaders are only in power for a short while. These leaders have no motivation to not loot the country as much as possible. It is like saying "You have a million dollars but only 10 minutes to spend it. GO!". So every politician ends up creating giant budgets in the best way they think will secure them a better future. They often make friends with influential people and corporations by passing what these groups want in order to secure themselves a nice life after they're out of office. Not to mention that policies often take a long time to manifest. Some policies could take decades to fully manifest and see the effects of it. However, by this point the politicians are retired and they don't care as it won't negatively effect them anymore. Having a Monarch leader mostly eliminates these problems as long as those two requirements exist. A basic caring for their own family and a basic understanding of economics. That's all it takes.
2. Other systems allow corporations to nominate who can/can't run.
Almost every single politician takes money from lobbyists. These politicians are then in the pockets of these corporations, the ones who sent the lobbyists. If you want to continue receiving our generous amount of money to fund your next campaign for re-election then you have to vote 'Yes' on X proposal package and push for 'Y' to be proposed in the next package of proposals. Most politicians are indebted to corporations in democratic republics. This is a serious issue. For example, let's take a Presidential primary race within the U. S. The issue here is there's often like 10+ people and they're all corporate backed because otherwise they wouldn't have the money to compete to be there. They need all of the money they can get to try to rise above the others and be noticed. If a corporation says "Hey, we're an electric car company and we'll give you ten million if you go anti-oil and increase subsides for green cars." then a different corporation goes to the next guy running in the primary and says "Hey, we're big oil and we'll give you thirty million if you let us drill in Alaska more and oppose all new green energy bills." So, it's just this proxy war that doesn't give a shit about social issues or cultural issues and is just fighting for their corporation to make more profit. Even worse, things like open borders/mass migration drives wages down which helps many corporations, so most corporations are for it while the people of the nation suffer. You would not encounter these issues nearly as much in a Monarchy. It is stupid to say that corporations would hold no influence in a Monarchy but not in the same shadow government sense that they do in a democratic republic.
While I am an American and thus you would not typically think of as a natural monarchist, the case for constitutional monarchy is exceptionally sound and more than deserves respect.
As the historian Michael Luckacs noted, "On the surface of the map of the world they represent the last central cluster of decency, those bourgeois monarchs of northwestern Europe. Churchill knew that: for he was a monarchist not out of mere sentiment but because of his deep historical reason. In a fatherless world they are sources of a certain strength and inspiration..."
That "certain strength and inspiration" more than proved itself during the Second World War, when the British monarchy stood as a symbol around which people rallied at the UK's darkest hour. In so doing they did not simply save the Britain, they did indeed save the whole of Western civilization.
These things are easily taken for granted, particularly in a populist era where the "people" are alleged to be the font of all wisdom and goodness. Monarchy may seem to be an anachronism, but in truth it serves as a politically and socially unifying symbol.
Its political neutrality putting the state outside of politics, and thereby giving people of sharply differing political views a point of common reference and identity. Its splendor serving to give something beyond the mundane and the common.
Indeed, not for nothing do republics tend to invest so much "pomp and ceremony" in their presidents. Whether it be symbolic heads of state, as in Israel or Germany, or executive heads of government, as in France and the United States.
The funny thing in the latter case of the United States being that ceremonies like the State of the Union address or the laying of a Wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown being treated with all the gravity and earnestness as any ceremony that a constitutional monarch might ever be engaged in.
In the end, it becomes monarchy in all but name. Albeit monarchy that is elective and therefore seemingly incongruous. The American or French president being expected to embody a nation's heritage and history and yet, at the end of the day, is a mere transient and indeed partisan figure.
That last point being especially pertinent. The character of the person serving in the office of Head of State then becomes paradoxically more important as such a person can never really much more represent a transient moment in a nation's partisan passions and therefore must ultimately have a limited appeal.
There perhaps being no better example that President Trump in the United States. Whatever the merits of his policies, his penchant for pouring salt in the social wounds must mean that his capacity to serve as a unifying Head of State is inherently limited.
This is not a problem in constitutional monarchy. To be sure, the character of the monarch is not unimportant, but as one in a long line of heads of state who have presided disinterestedly over the nation, their capacity for being a unifying social force is thereby enhanced.
At the end of the day, of course, monarchy must be appropriate to the culture else it cannot work. Still, as Churchill said,
"Ministers come and go, but the King remains, always at the center of public affairs... He is the continuous element in the constitution, one of the main safeguards of its democratic character, and the repository of a knowledge of affairs that before long comes to transcend that of any individual statesman...
The victorious democracies, in driving out hereditary sovereigns, supposed that they were moving on the path to progress. They have in fact gone further and fared worse. A royal dynasty looking back upon the traditions of the past, and looking forward to a continuity in the future, offers an element of security to the liberty and happiness of nations."
They may be outdated but to an extent thats the whole point, they're a link to the past. It would be a shame to break such a long tradition just because the mood of the day was against the monarchy. I think the main purpose they serve to day (apart from tourist attraction) is they hold politicians to account on behalf of the population. As one British prime minister put it, it's one thing to argue with the opposition in parliament it's another to be grilled by the Queen.
Opinion
6Opinion
Technically all monarchies are confidence scams and bunkum.
Mainly as we know their forefathers didn't "kill dragons" or do even half the supernatural shit they claimed to have done. Which is what won most of them their crowns and their kids have been living off that fraud since.
The Queen of the UK has an over 60% approval rating. I think that as long as a monarch is popular the country should keep them.
None of the ones we have now!
A monarch should be purely the racial representative of the nation and should hold power over the state.
We're getting close to it now. It is the final endgame of the global elites.
It’s outdated Europe is backwards
Pointless to have them
Only absolute monarchies
Most Helpful Opinions