Why a Monarchy is the best form of Government?

[Deleted member 10797]

In this short paper, I am going to give you my reason why I believe a monarchy is the best form of government over any other. In the Western world, we are taught that democracy is the best form of government and has in many ways been turned into an idol. If someone attacks the idea of democracy, he is branded a “far-right extremist” or a little odd. The idea of democracy sounds good on paper but in practice is not as good. Democracy was founded by pagan Greek philosophers and is not the basis of Holy Scripture. There are some aspects of democracy that can be shown by Scripture, but by and large, democracy is not a Biblical Christian concept.

For example, in the Old Testament, we see God appointing Kings to rule and reign over a particular land. Some Biblical Kings were good and for the common good, but some were bad and were given as a curse on the land in which they ruled.

This is in a nutshell why I believe a monarchy is better than a democracy.

My first point is that a monarchy is regarded as one of the most stable forms of government. Throughout history, there have been many examples of stable governments that have been ruled by a monarch. From a young age, would-be Kings and Queens are taught how to rule justly and are educated in the art and craft of leadership. Normally Kings and Queens are better prepared and educated to execute the office of leadership. Kings and Queens have morals and ethical views.

Secondly, the monarchy reduce the levels of political divide and corruption in a country. A monarchy would reduce the political debate and would create a more peaceful nation. If you have only one person as head of state and government for life, then there would be only those who are for or against one person rather than multi people or political parties. It is the King or Queen that has the final say on all matters in such cases. This means that those who are born to rule actually do rule. There are also fewer transfers of power in an absolute monarchist nation. In the United Kingdom, the change of power can happen every few years which offers no political stability, (normally every 5 years). A monarchy also works to support a nation’s cultural identity. The values and beliefs of a nation are embodied in the royal family.

One reason why I dislike democracy is that it is fundamentally based on the principle that the people of the nation hold the power even if those people voting have no information or education in the matters on which they are asking to vote on. Most people vote for what is best for them or what they want rather than what is best for the nation or the common good.

For example, if you were on a plane and had to elect the pilot which one candidate would you vote for? Would you vote for the one who offered you first-class travel with the best food and drink, or would you vote for the one who would offer you economy travel and only simple food and drink? Most people would vote for the first man. However, what I did not mention in the descriptions is that the first man has very little experience in flying and the second man is the best and most qualified man for the job. This is how democracy works. The majority wins and the power is held by the voters even if those voters vote for the wrong person.

We see this in most general elections. This is why politicians appeal to votes’ personal needs and desires without having any intention of fulfilling their election promises. For example, look at what the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said during the 2010 General Election. He promises to scrap tuition fees for students. No wonder thousands of young people and students voted Liberal Democrat. Therefore, Nick Clegg made great gains across the UK and won seats for his party. He won enough seats to support the Conservative Party in government but compromised on this election promise when he when into government with the Conservatives. I am not picking on the Liberal Democrats here; I am just using them as a good example to prove my point. All political parties do this to win votes. In one way they must do this to win elections. If they were to tell votes the grime reality of cuts and unpopular policies people would not vote for them. Sadly, unpopular decisions must be made for the common good.

Going back to my point, monarchy unites people better than political parties do. In the UK people of all political groups and parties agree on the benefits of a monarchy and agree that overall the monarchy is for the benefit of British society, tourism and culture. The last Queen Elizabeth II was a force for good over the 70 years she was on the throne. This was evident at the time of her death. Around a quarter of a million people paid their respects in person to the Queen by viewing her coffin as it lay in state in London.

Another point I would like to make is that a monarchy is cheaper than a republic. A monarchy is also good for tourism. In the UK millions of people visit the country each year to visit the royal palace and parks. Looking at other countries for example, in France the cost for the French President is about £103 million, and Italy is about £193 million. The British Monarchy costs the taxpayer about £40 million a year, but the money made from tourism is worth justifying having a monarchy. Former Bank of England rate-setter Tim Besley wrote a paper suggesting countries with “weak executive constraints” that went from a non-hereditary leader to a hereditary leader (ie a Monarchy) increase the annual average economic growth of the country by 1.03% per year. The British Royal Family contributes £1.155 billion to the economy, taking £535 million in tourism in 2015. The fashion industry has also experienced the effect: the ‘Kate effect’ of brands ‘worn and endorsed’ has seen £152 million pumped into the industry. £101 million is attributed to the ‘Charlotte Effect’ and £76 million to the ‘George Effect’.

There is a lot more to be written and said on this topic, however, this is my view on why I believe we ought to scrap the current democratically elected politicians and have an absolute monarchist rule and reign. It is by no means perfect and without error, but I believe this is a much better form of government. In times past when Kings and Queens ruled over England and later the United Kingdom the country was in a much better state than the days in which we live.

We have just witnessed our first coronation in over 70 years in the United Kingdom. On May 6, 2023 over 20 million people turned in to watch King Charles III crowned in Westminster Abbey. Monarchy is far from dead, it is alive and kicking. God Save the King!

 

[biblesword]

I think democratic-republic better resembles the biblical pattern for leadership. If you recall, the Israelites wanted a king to be like the world and God warned them about the consequences of that. God wanted them to rule their nation with Him as king and we look forward to Jesus ruling over us. Since we have sinful natures, the best form of government is one that reflects the teachings of Paul to Timothy about how to run a church. Notice there is not just one person in charge but a counsel of elders - highly qualified Godly individuals that serve as a balance of power. The ideal form of government would be a theocracy. The American government of a democratic republic was designed by a large group of people - a bunch of whom were pastors - and you can see many of these biblical principals in it. The apparent flaws that have emerged are the two party system and people getting elected who have a contempt for God, the Bible, and the constitution. At least with a two party system there is competition between them. In a monarchy you are stuck with one family no matter how sinful and you can see the fruit of that throughout history. The United States was started because of religious persecution of the Puritans. As for the current modern British “monarchy”, the king or queen is mostly symbolic anyway.

 

[dsanch1120]

I like the idea of monarchy, but unfortunately, I think hereditary monarchy is only best in a hypothetical sense. The reality is that absolute monarchy (not what we see today in Europe) is not necessarily the most stable form of government. Look at any dynasty in history and you see chaos, intrigue, and war. Even the English monarchy has had all kinds of conflict (often violent) over who gets to rule. The Davidic dynasty appeared to last 400 years (I say appeared, because Christ is reigning now, praise God!), but as O. Palmer Robertson pointed out, that's very much the exception as most dynasties don't last anywhere near that long. Look at the dynasty of Israel, or any other monarchy in history. I would also argue that giving absolute power to one individual is seldom a good idea, the American founding fathers certainly had their issues, but they recognized that power corrupts and wisely created a system of checks and balances. Corruption might be less common in a monarchy, but sin doesn't die because of circumstances, it just adapts. Corrupt men with power will still, through corruption, find a way to keep and exercise their power.
I would also push back on the idea that monarchs are ethical and moral. As Calvin (I think) pointed out, many a Hezekiah has been followed by a Manasseh. Many kings throughout history have committed great sin, without any checks or balances to keep them in place. A good king would cause a nation to flourish, but a wicked king would destroy the people.
It's also worth noting that even in democracies, only one ballot truly matters: God's. God determines who wins each election, from the president of the US, to the head of a school board in a small town. God can still give good rulers as a blessing and wicked rulers as a curse. In the same way that God raised up Nero, he also could raise up a tyrant in an otherwise corruption-free democracy.
I agree that democracies have their short-comings when we just look at the average voter. People vote for the sweet-talkers and often vote based on feelings, rather than critically thinking about what's best for them and their fellow man. You mentioned that democracy came from pagans. This idea against democracy (including the analogy you used with the airplane) came from Socrates, a pagan philosopher.
I have my issues with democracy, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think it's the least of many evils. The only good form of Government is a true theocracy, which we will have when Christ returns.

 

[RamistThomist]

The reality is that absolute monarchy (not what we see today in Europe) is not necessarily the most stable form of government.

No one is saying we want absolute monarchy. Monarchs in the middle ages were very decentralized. After the British monarchy destroyed Napoleon, monarchs in Europe were far from absolute.

Look at any dynasty in history and you see chaos, intrigue, and war.

Ad hoc...propter hoc fallacy.

Even the English monarchy has had all kinds of conflict (often violent) over who gets to rule.

Look at democratic governments in Africa and South America. Either we are going to argue based on the nature of things in their essences, or we can trade disaster stories.

It's also worth noting that even in democracies, only one ballot truly matters: God's. God determines who wins each election, from the president of the US, to the head of a school board in a small town. God can still give good rulers as a blessing and wicked rulers as a curse. In the same way that God raised up Nero, he also could raise up a tyrant in an otherwise corruption-free democracy.

This is true, but it does not exactly advance the discussion.

To more general comments:
1) Voting is nice, but counting the votes is even better.
2) Corporations tend to have stronger control over the country in democracies than in monarchs. This is not an absolute statement, but it seems to have been the case.
3) Not every country needs to be a monarchy. Unless someone like General Flynn rescues America and establishes a dynasty, we probably will not have a monarchy.
4) Neither by that same logic does every country need to be a Western democracy. This is the idol of nation-building.
5) The British empire in the last few hundred years has been far more stable than, say, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
6) A monarchy at its best moments reminds people that there is stability and permanence that defies the agitators for social reform (e.g., Marxists).

Solzhenitsyn sums up the case for monarchy:

November 1916: Node 3, the monarchy

We are continuing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “nodal analysis” of the Russian Revolution. The hero of the story is Vorotyntsev. He’s home from the front. Through him we see that th…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[RamistThomist]

I am going to post Solzhenitsyn's case for monarchy. Keep in mind he did not like the Russian monarchy. It was too weak and ineffective. The larger principles, however, stand.

1) Monarchy does not mean stagnation. “A cautious approach to the new, a conservative sentiment, does not mean stagnation. A farsighted monarch carries out reforms–but only for those whose time is ripe. He does not go at it mindlessly, as some republican governments do, maneuvering so as not to lose power” (340).

2) An established line of succession saves a country from destructive rebellions. Political strife is reduced. We might respect a republican government because of Romans 13 (JBA), but we don’t actually respect it. We know they probably lied to get to office and even if they do fulfill their promises, it’s only to pay off a debt.

3) Persuading a monarch is no more difficult than a republican government. A republican government has to persuade the public, and that public is often at the mercy of ignorance, passion, and vested interest (341).

4) A monarchy doesn’t necessarily make slaves of the people. A commercial republic is just as likely to de-personalize them. Why is subordinating myself to a faceless electorate (and the unelected bureaucracy behind them) preferable to a monarch?

5) Solzhenitsyn faces the biggest objection to monarchy: what happens when you get an idiot? His answer is probably the best in the literature: “”The accident of birth is a vulnerable point, yes. But there are also lucky accidents. But a talented man at the head of a monarchy, what republic can compare? A monarch may be sublime, but a man elected by the majority will almost certainly be a mediocrity” (342).

Solzhenitsyn goes on to list that republican governments have their own Achillees’ heels: ambitious politicians, a morass of red tape hampering reform, etc. And his interlocutor asks a very uncomfortable question: why should we suppose equality and freedom to be preferable to honor and dignity? Maybe they are, but we rarely hear arguments to the point.

 

[dsanch1120]

Ad hoc...propter hoc fallacy.

Is it really though? My point was not to show that monarchy is inherently unstable, but rather to push back against the point that it is necessarily a more stable and peaceful form of government. People in a nation can become rebellious and unstable in any system of government and rulers can become corrupt and destructive in any system of government, including monarchies.

This is true, but it does not exactly advance the discussion.

I disagree. The point was made that in monarchy, God has historically raised up good and bad kings for blessing and judgment respectively. I'm pointing out that a monarchy is not necessary for this to occur. I believe that we in the United States have had elected leaders who were blessings and elected leaders who were curses.

No one is saying we want absolute monarchy.

This is exactly what was said in the original post: "this is my view on why I believe we ought to scrap the current democratically elected politicians and have an absolute monarchist rule and reign."

This all being said, I'll definitely give Solzhenitsyn a read. His arguments that you posted look like they would be pretty interesting.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is it really though?

Formally, yes.

"this is my view on why I believe we ought to scrap the current democratically elected politicians and have an absolute monarchist rule and reign."

My mistake. Then that view is rather unique. Very few monarchists today advocate an absolutist monarchy.

The point was made that in monarchy, God has historically raised up good and bad kings for blessing and judgment respectively. I'm pointing out that a monarchy is not necessary for this to occur.

I understand. I agree that is not the strongest argument. It is dangerous to force providence to a specific historical interpretation. To be sure, the British monarchy stood against many Luciferian revolutions, but I would not press the data beyond that.

 

[RamistThomist]

My own take on monarchy is that it is a real, but limited good. It exposes inadequacies in modern governments. I admit that at the same time it is only a penultimate good and does not have all the answers.

It does, however, resist the "herd mentality" of democracy.

 

[0isez]

In 1 Samuel 8, there's a pretty good list of reasons why not to have a king. A government is only as good as those running it, no matter if it's a king or a president. If things don't go well in a republic you can always vote the guy or gal out. In a monarchy your stuck and maybe for a lifetime. I've read Solzhenitsyn's stance on his preference for a monarchy. As much as I respect the man, it must be remembered, he was born a slave to a king. He's never experienced the freedom of a republic such as America. What they called a middle class back in Czarist Russia encompassed a very austere life style. Hard work, and little recreation. I suspect if Solzhenitsyn experienced America in whatever era he would find it superior to his homeland. Think of the migration into this country, why? Freedom. Same thing today. So, when your college professors, liberal authors and media convince you that the American experiment is over, and a better way is a monarchy I suggest before you accept that as fact, look what heights America hit, never before has the working class enjoyed so much freedom. Be careful what you give away, you may never get it back again.

 

[RamistThomist]

In 1 Samuel 8, there's a pretty good list of reasons why not to have a king.

And all of those reasons are de facto for even small govt republicans. Saul's exorbitant tax rate is far better than anything the IRS does to us.

As much as I respect the man, it must be remembered, he was born a slave to a king. He's never experienced the freedom of a republic such as America.

He lived most of his life in Switzerland and America.

 

[RamistThomist]

In 1 Samuel 8, there's a pretty good list of reasons why not to have a king. A government is only as good as those running it, no matter if it's a king or a president. If things don't go well in a republic you can always vote the guy or gal out. In a monarchy your stuck and maybe for a lifetime. I've read Solzhenitsyn's stance on his preference for a monarchy. As much as I respect the man, it must be remembered, he was born a slave to a king. He's never experienced the freedom of a republic such as America. What they called a middle class back in Czarist Russia encompassed a very austere life style. Hard work, and little recreation. I suspect if Solzhenitsyn experienced America in whatever era he would find it superior to his homeland. Think of the migration into this country, why? Freedom. Same thing today. So, when your college professors, liberal authors and media convince you that the American experiment is over, and a better way is a monarchy I suggest before you accept that as fact, look what heights America hit, never before has the working class enjoyed so much freedom. Be careful what you give away, you may never get it back again.

Solzhenitsyn documented the pros and cons of first hand experience between East and West.

Between Two Millstones vol 1 (Solzhenitsyn)

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. Between Two Millstones Book 1: Sketches of Exile, 1974-1978. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 2018. This is a great book, but it is not a happy book. The eponymous millst…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[John The Baptist]

@RamistThomist not to derail, but would there be some sort of established church in which our view of a properly constructed monarchy?

 

[RamistThomist]

@RamistThomist not to derail, but would there be some sort of established church in which our view of a properly constructed monarchy?

Probably, but it gets tricky. The churches were often established long before some of the monarchies were really in place. That raises a good point for this discussion. We tend to think that the form of government = the state = the country. That is not how society is traditionally view. The monarch, excepting Louis XIV's bad phrase, was not the govt. Certainly not the bureacrataic apparatus.

States like Germany and England probably overlapped with the good kind of monarchy, and they had established churches (which I think is bad), but the one does not always imply the other.

 

[RamistThomist]

Regarding 1 Samuel 8:

• The American system and the tribal theocracy of 1 Samuel 8 are not the same. Yahweh specifically told Samuel the Israelites were rejecting Yahweh. My question: do evangelicals actually think and see the new America as ruled by Yahweh himself without a mediating figure?
  • They will probably answer “no.” They have to for a number of theological reasons. In order to be ruled *im*mediately by Yahweh, they would have to receive directions and guidance directly from Yahweh himself. In other words, they actually have to hear the voice of God!
  • This means, obviously, some form of mediating figure is necessary (O’Donovan, 50). In order for their appeal to 1 Samuel 8 to be strong, they have to posit the same social form seen in 1 Samuel 8. During pre-Davidic Israel, Samuel was the mediating figure between Yahweh and the nation (1 Samuel 3:19-21). Thus, republicans have to posit some Samuel-ite figure to mediate between God and the nation (the papal overtones should not be missed). Few evangelicals will take this route.
  • In rejecting both the immediate rule by Yahweh and the mediating rule of a Samuel-ite prophet, I conclude that republicans should abandon their appeal to 1 Samuel 8. Besides applying a unique situation in salvation-history, and besides the fact that few evangelicals advocate a theonomic hermeneutic (which they must via their appeals to 1 Samuel 8), the republican evangelical must acknowledge that his situation is not analogous to pre-Davidic Israel and any sort of appeal to pre-Davidic Israel as normative for all time is fraught with problems.
• O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

 

[Claudiu]

Regarding 1 Samuel 8:

• The American system and the tribal theocracy of 1 Samuel 8 are not the same. Yahweh specifically told Samuel the Israelites were rejecting Yahweh. My question: do evangelicals actually think and see the new America as ruled by Yahweh himself without a mediating figure?
  • They will probably answer “no.” They have to for a number of theological reasons. In order to be ruled *im*mediately by Yahweh, they would have to receive directions and guidance directly from Yahweh himself. In other words, they actually have to hear the voice of God!
  • This means, obviously, some form of mediating figure is necessary (O’Donovan, 50). In order for their appeal to 1 Samuel 8 to be strong, they have to posit the same social form seen in 1 Samuel 8. During pre-Davidic Israel, Samuel was the mediating figure between Yahweh and the nation (1 Samuel 3:19-21). Thus, republicans have to posit some Samuel-ite figure to mediate between God and the nation (the papal overtones should not be missed). Few evangelicals will take this route.
  • In rejecting both the immediate rule by Yahweh and the mediating rule of a Samuel-ite prophet, I conclude that republicans should abandon their appeal to 1 Samuel 8. Besides applying a unique situation in salvation-history, and besides the fact that few evangelicals advocate a theonomic hermeneutic (which they must via their appeals to 1 Samuel 8), the republican evangelical must acknowledge that his situation is not analogous to pre-Davidic Israel and any sort of appeal to pre-Davidic Israel as normative for all time is fraught with problems.
• O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Also, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides qualifications for when Israel was to have a king. It doesn't appear that God had planned for there never to be a king, but rather that the people desired one after the nations as being negative. I don't think it's as simple as "king = bad," "no king = good" according to 1 Sam. And I'm saying this as one who mostly enjoys a constitutional republic with no current desire to play armchair monarchist.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides qualifications for when Israel was to have a king. It doesn't appear that God had planned for there never to be a king, but rather that the people desired one after the nations as being negative. I don't think it's as simple as "king = bad," "no king = good" according to 1 Sam. And I'm saying this as one who mostly enjoys a constitutional republic with no current desire to play armchair monarchist.

Right. The issue is that both representation and monarchy are limited, penultimate goods. And for what it is worth, representation and monarchy are not even mutually exclusive. If monarchy was evil in its essence, then why did God promise a glorious monarchy. We can say because Jesus or something, but that does not really work. If something is evil by the nature of the case, putting Jesus as the adjective does not make it better.

Another problem with the debate: there is a tendency on both sides to compare their team as an ideal versus the other team as a historical reality. Representative government looks great when it is Patrick Henry and Donald Trump. It does not appear quite so nice when you have the rest of DC involved. Monarchy is great when it is King Gustavus Adolphus, the man who kept the Inquisition from overrunning Europe. Louis XIV is a different matter.

 

[Claudiu]

Right. The issue is that both representation and monarchy are limited, penultimate goods. And for what it is worth, representation and monarchy are not even mutually exclusive. If monarchy was evil in its essence, then why did God promise a glorious monarchy. We can say because Jesus or something, but that does not really work. If something is evil by the nature of the case, putting Jesus as the adjective does not make it better.

Another problem with the debate: there is a tendency on both sides to compare their team as an ideal versus the other team as a historical reality. Representative government looks great when it is Patrick Henry and Donald Trump. It does not appear quite so nice when you have the rest of DC involved. Monarchy is great when it is King Gustavus Adolphus, the man who kept the Inquisition from overrunning Europe. Louis XIV is a different matter.

I'm anticipating a new avatar change coming from you.

 

[Jie-Huli]

In this short paper, I am going to give you my reason why I believe a monarchy is the best form of government over any other. In the Western world, we are taught that democracy is the best form of government and has in many ways been turned into an idol. If someone attacks the idea of democracy, he is branded a “far-right extremist” or a little odd. The idea of democracy sounds good on paper but in practice is not as good. Democracy was founded by pagan Greek philosophers and is not the basis of Holy Scripture. There are some aspects of democracy that can be shown by Scripture, but by and large, democracy is not a Biblical Christian concept.

For example, in the Old Testament, we see God appointing Kings to rule and reign over a particular land. Some Biblical Kings were good and for the common good, but some were bad and were given as a curse on the land in which they ruled.

This is in a nutshell why I believe a monarchy is better than a democracy.

My first point is that a monarchy is regarded as one of the most stable forms of government. Throughout history, there have been many examples of stable governments that have been ruled by a monarch. From a young age, would-be Kings and Queens are taught how to rule justly and are educated in the art and craft of leadership. Normally Kings and Queens are better prepared and educated to execute the office of leadership. Kings and Queens have morals and ethical views.

Secondly, the monarchy reduce the levels of political divide and corruption in a country. A monarchy would reduce the political debate and would create a more peaceful nation. If you have only one person as head of state and government for life, then there would be only those who are for or against one person rather than multi people or political parties. It is the King or Queen that has the final say on all matters in such cases. This means that those who are born to rule actually do rule. There are also fewer transfers of power in an absolute monarchist nation. In the United Kingdom, the change of power can happen every few years which offers no political stability, (normally every 5 years). A monarchy also works to support a nation’s cultural identity. The values and beliefs of a nation are embodied in the royal family.

One reason why I dislike democracy is that it is fundamentally based on the principle that the people of the nation hold the power even if those people voting have no information or education in the matters on which they are asking to vote on. Most people vote for what is best for them or what they want rather than what is best for the nation or the common good.

For example, if you were on a plane and had to elect the pilot which one candidate would you vote for? Would you vote for the one who offered you first-class travel with the best food and drink, or would you vote for the one who would offer you economy travel and only simple food and drink? Most people would vote for the first man. However, what I did not mention in the descriptions is that the first man has very little experience in flying and the second man is the best and most qualified man for the job. This is how democracy works. The majority wins and the power is held by the voters even if those voters vote for the wrong person.

We see this in most general elections. This is why politicians appeal to votes’ personal needs and desires without having any intention of fulfilling their election promises. For example, look at what the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said during the 2010 General Election. He promises to scrap tuition fees for students. No wonder thousands of young people and students voted Liberal Democrat. Therefore, Nick Clegg made great gains across the UK and won seats for his party. He won enough seats to support the Conservative Party in government but compromised on this election promise when he when into government with the Conservatives. I am not picking on the Liberal Democrats here; I am just using them as a good example to prove my point. All political parties do this to win votes. In one way they must do this to win elections. If they were to tell votes the grime reality of cuts and unpopular policies people would not vote for them. Sadly, unpopular decisions must be made for the common good.

Going back to my point, monarchy unites people better than political parties do. In the UK people of all political groups and parties agree on the benefits of a monarchy and agree that overall the monarchy is for the benefit of British society, tourism and culture. The last Queen Elizabeth II was a force for good over the 70 years she was on the throne. This was evident at the time of her death. Around a quarter of a million people paid their respects in person to the Queen by viewing her coffin as it lay in state in London.

Another point I would like to make is that a monarchy is cheaper than a republic. A monarchy is also good for tourism. In the UK millions of people visit the country each year to visit the royal palace and parks. Looking at other countries for example, in France the cost for the French President is about £103 million, and Italy is about £193 million. The British Monarchy costs the taxpayer about £40 million a year, but the money made from tourism is worth justifying having a monarchy. Former Bank of England rate-setter Tim Besley wrote a paper suggesting countries with “weak executive constraints” that went from a non-hereditary leader to a hereditary leader (ie a Monarchy) increase the annual average economic growth of the country by 1.03% per year. The British Royal Family contributes £1.155 billion to the economy, taking £535 million in tourism in 2015. The fashion industry has also experienced the effect: the ‘Kate effect’ of brands ‘worn and endorsed’ has seen £152 million pumped into the industry. £101 million is attributed to the ‘Charlotte Effect’ and £76 million to the ‘George Effect’.

There is a lot more to be written and said on this topic, however, this is my view on why I believe we ought to scrap the current democratically elected politicians and have an absolute monarchist rule and reign. It is by no means perfect and without error, but I believe this is a much better form of government. In times past when Kings and Queens ruled over England and later the United Kingdom the country was in a much better state than the days in which we live.

We have just witnessed our first coronation in over 70 years in the United Kingdom. On May 6, 2023 over 20 million people turned in to watch King Charles III crowned in Westminster Abbey. Monarchy is far from dead, it is alive and kicking. God Save the King!

I would agree with you in your conclusion, and think there is rich ground for developing a more extensive Biblical argument - God’s election vs the will of man; the promotion of family; the many, many references to “kingship” in the Bible and the importance of maintaining a human institution to give meaning to those references.

Of course the arguments one makes will depend on the audience - there are arguments most suited to those within the folds of the Christian Church, and then the more pragmatic and broader philosophical arguments suited for the masses.

Towards the Christian audience, I think a fulsome modern defence of monarchy will need to address the popular and superficially compelling (though misguided) argument that the institution of monarchy in the Old Testament was simply an accommodation to the people’s desire to be like the nations around them rather than God’s will for them. I see this has been discussed a bit in the posts above.

It is also important to establish the principle from a Protestant perspective, given so much of the European Monarchist camp today is interwoven with traditionalist Roman Catholicism. The British monarchy is somewhat unique today in its Constitutional allegiance to the Reformed Protestant faith (on display in the recent Coronation in spite of the woeful condition of the modern Church of England, thanks to the wisdom of our forebears in the Coronation oaths set down in law), which in some respects serves as a model.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

In this short paper, I am going to give you my reason why I believe a monarchy is the best form of government over any other. In the Western world, we are taught that democracy is the best form of government and has in many ways been turned into an idol. If someone attacks the idea of democracy, he is branded a “far-right extremist” or a little odd. The idea of democracy sounds good on paper but in practice is not as good. Democracy was founded by pagan Greek philosophers and is not the basis of Holy Scripture. There are some aspects of democracy that can be shown by Scripture, but by and large, democracy is not a Biblical Christian concept.

For example, in the Old Testament, we see God appointing Kings to rule and reign over a particular land. Some Biblical Kings were good and for the common good, but some were bad and were given as a curse on the land in which they ruled.

This is in a nutshell why I believe a monarchy is better than a democracy.

Thought I might as well post this here while its on the clip board.

Hate to go against you brother, but the scripture if full of examples of it explicitly saying that the people choose their rulers and kings many times in Israels civil government (I'm neither a fan of monarchy or democracy, but I am a fan of constitutional republics):

Numbers 11:16, 17- 16And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. 17And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.


Deuteronomy 1:9-15- 9And I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone: 10The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. 11(The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!) 12How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? 13Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. 14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. 15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.


Deuteronomy 17:14, 15- 14“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.


Judges 9:6- And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.


Judges 11:11- Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the LORD in Mizpeh.



1 Samuel 11:15- And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal; and there they sacrificed sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.



2 Sam 2:4- And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul.



2 Samuel 5:1-3- 1Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Here we are, your own flesh and blood. 2Even in times past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them back. And to you the LORD said, ‘You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be ruler over them.’ 3So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, where King David made with them a covenant before the LORD. And they anointed him king over Israel.



1 Kings 1:39- And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.



1 Kings 12:1- And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.



1 Kings 12:20- And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.



1 Kings 16:16- And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.



1 Kings 16:21, 22- Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri. But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned.



2 Kings 10:5- and he that was over the house, and he that was over the city, the elders also, and the bringers up of the children, sent to Jehu, saying, We are thy servants, and will do all that thou shalt bid us; we will not make any king: do thou that which is good in thine eyes.



2 Kings 11:4, 12- And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the LORD, and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the LORD, and shewed them the king's son. and he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.



2 Kings 14:21- And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah.



2 Kings 21:24- And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead.



1 Chron 11:1-3- Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel. 3Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel.



1 Chronicles 12:23, 38- And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD…All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.



1 Chronicles 29:21-24- 21And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel: 22And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. 23Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. 24And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king.



2 Chronicles 10:1-And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for to Shechem were all Israel come to make him king.



2 Chronicles 22:1- And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.



2 Chronicles 23:1-3, 11-13, 20- 1And in the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, and Azariah the son of Obed, and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him. 2And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem. 3And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said unto them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the LORD hath said of the sons of David…11Then they brought out the king's son, and put upon him the crown, and gave him the testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and said, God save the king. Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of the LORD: 13And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as taught to sing praise. Then Athaliah rent her clothes, and said, Treason, Treason…20And he took the captains of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of the LORD: and they came through the high gate into the king's house, and set the king upon the throne of the kingdom. 21And all the people of the land rejoiced: and the city was quiet, after that they had slain Athaliah with the sword.



2 Chronicles 26:1- 1Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.



2 Chronicles 36:1- 1Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's stead in Jerusalem.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thought I might as well post this here while its on the clip board.

Hate to go against you brother, but the scripture if full of examples of it explicitly saying that the people choose their rulers and kings many times in Israels civil government (I'm neither a fan of monarchy or democracy, but I am a fan of constitutional republics):

Numbers 11:16, 17- 16And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. 17And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.


Deuteronomy 1:9-15- 9And I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone: 10The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. 11(The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!) 12How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? 13Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. 14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. 15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.


Deuteronomy 17:14, 15- 14“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.


Judges 9:6- And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.


Judges 11:11- Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the LORD in Mizpeh.



1 Samuel 11:15- And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal; and there they sacrificed sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.



2 Sam 2:4- And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul.



2 Samuel 5:1-3- 1Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Here we are, your own flesh and blood. 2Even in times past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them back. And to you the LORD said, ‘You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be ruler over them.’ 3So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, where King David made with them a covenant before the LORD. And they anointed him king over Israel.



1 Kings 1:39- And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.



1 Kings 12:1- And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.



1 Kings 12:20- And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.



1 Kings 16:16- And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.



1 Kings 16:21, 22- Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri. But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned.



2 Kings 10:5- and he that was over the house, and he that was over the city, the elders also, and the bringers up of the children, sent to Jehu, saying, We are thy servants, and will do all that thou shalt bid us; we will not make any king: do thou that which is good in thine eyes.



2 Kings 11:4, 12- And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the LORD, and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the LORD, and shewed them the king's son. and he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.



2 Kings 14:21- And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah.



2 Kings 21:24- And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead.



1 Chron 11:1-3- Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel. 3Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel.



1 Chronicles 12:23, 38- And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD…All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.



1 Chronicles 29:21-24- 21And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel: 22And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. 23Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. 24And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king.



2 Chronicles 10:1-And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for to Shechem were all Israel come to make him king.



2 Chronicles 22:1- And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.



2 Chronicles 23:1-3, 11-13, 20- 1And in the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, and Azariah the son of Obed, and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him. 2And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem. 3And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said unto them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the LORD hath said of the sons of David…11Then they brought out the king's son, and put upon him the crown, and gave him the testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and said, God save the king. Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of the LORD: 13And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as taught to sing praise. Then Athaliah rent her clothes, and said, Treason, Treason…20And he took the captains of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of the LORD: and they came through the high gate into the king's house, and set the king upon the throne of the kingdom. 21And all the people of the land rejoiced: and the city was quiet, after that they had slain Athaliah with the sword.



2 Chronicles 26:1- 1Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.



2 Chronicles 36:1- 1Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's stead in Jerusalem.

I see it as both and, and I realize that the OP takes monarchism in a way far different than most of us who are constitutional monarchists today. Rutherford does a good job in Lex, Rex explaining how the king has power both from God formally but from the people in terms of confirmation.

 

[0isez]

It is difficult and puzzling to read the gushing lovefest over the benefits of a monarchy by those who have been privileged to enjoy the fruits of an American republic. Do you think that you could have had the benefits you have now if you first were born under a monarchy? Do you think your wages would be in line with what you make now if under the rule of a monarchy? What about your car? Your vacation plans? Your freedom of travel? Your choice of where to live?All of this could be lost in a monarchy simply by a declaration of one man. The difference between a tyrant and a monarch is nothing, no safeguards against persecution, no guarantees against poverty, no safeguards against caste systems all this is in the hands of one absolute ruler.
It was a monarchy from which we fled to America because the gracious monarch in England wanted to dictate what his subjects should believe about the Bible.
Being an American sailor for 20 years I have traveled all over the world four times and have seen the results of a so-called free society under a monarchy. At best it was several levels below American standards of living; in health, wealth and recreation. At worst it was a devilish hole of poverty and corruption. Say what you will, but you can't fix a monarchy.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is difficult and puzzling to read the gushing lovefest over the benefits of a monarchy by those who have been privileged to enjoy the fruits of an American republic. Do you think that you could have had the benefits you have now if you first were born under a monarchy? Do you think your wages would be in line with what you make now if under the rule of a monarchy? What about your car? Your vacation plans? Your freedom of travel? Your choice of where to live?All of this could be lost in a monarchy simply by a declaration of one man. The difference between a tyrant and a monarch is nothing, no safeguards against persecution, no guarantees against poverty, no safeguards against caste systems all this is in the hands of one absolute ruler.
It was a monarchy from which we fled to America because the gracious monarch in England wanted to dictate what his subjects should believe about the Bible.
Being an American sailor for 20 years I have traveled all over the world four times and have seen the results of a so-called free society under a monarchy. At best it was several levels below American standards of living; in health, wealth and recreation. At worst it was a devilish hole of poverty and corruption. Say what you will, but you can't fix a monarchy.

This assumes that monarchy necessarily means absolutist monarchy, yet I am not arguing that, nor does recent history bear that out.

As to these examples of monarchy, you do not give specifics. In any case, the same applies to republics. I would not want to live in an African or South American republic, yet no one holds those up as the norms of what republican government should be.

As to fleeing a monarch, sure. There is no reason why a republic or (what is more likely) the corporate oligarchs that control the republic cannot take our liberties. Actually, I just described the American scene today.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The American government of a democratic republic was designed by a large group of people

Twelve states via their legislatures (elected by the minority of free, male, adult landowners) appointed 70 individuals to the Constitutional Convention. 55 of them attended the Constitutional Convention sessions. Only 39 signed the new Constitution. This does not, in my view, resemble a government designed by a large group of people.

a bunch of whom were pastors - and you can see many of these biblical principals in it.

None of the 39 men who signed the US Constitution were ministers and only two of the signers of the earlier US Declaration of Independence were ministers (Lyman Hall of GA and John Witherspoon of NJ). When the representatives of the British colonists of the united States of America declared themselves to be "Free and Independent States," they at least appealed to God as Creator and "Supreme Judge of the world," expressing their "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." After this declaration of independence, which most generally agree to be a noble and righteous action, the new nation, despite the seeming favor of God in delivering the freedom they sought, quickly rejected Him in favor of secular humanism. Within a decade they had adopted a constitution which, rather than appealing to God, placed the power and glory in "We the people," with no mention of God save for the date at the end, and even then they sought to replace the work of Christ with the work of man: "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."

It is telling that only 6 of the men who signed the Declaration signed the Constitution - there is quite a departure in substance between the two documents. I maintain that any Biblical principles contained in the US Constitution were adopted on the basis of being principles of natural law without any reference to Christianity. Very shortly after the ratification of the new constitution, the nation proclaimed to the world that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli 4 November 1796, Article 11).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

There is a lot more to be written and said on this topic, however, this is my view on why I believe we ought to scrap the current democratically elected politicians and have an absolute monarchist rule and reign. It is by no means perfect and without error, but I believe this is a much better form of government. In times past when Kings and Queens ruled over England and later the United Kingdom the country was in a much better state than the days in which we live.

Speaking as a constitutional monarchist, I strongly disavow this message. Our constitutional monarchy in the UK works so well precisely because the monarch is a ceremonial head of state, not an absolute ruler.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm not sure where the idea is coming from that the English monarch was ever an absolute monarch, but that was never really the case.
The first written compilation of English law was Bracton's De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, and in it, Bracton states that the king is subject to the law and cannot change it. He says, "But English laws and customs of this kind, by the authority of kings, sometimes enjoin, sometimes forbid, and sometimes avenge and punish transgressors, and when they have been approved by the consent of those who use them, and have been confirmed by the oath of kings, they cannot be changed nor abolished without the common consent and counsel of all those, by whose common consent and counsel they have been promulgated."

 

[Northern Crofter]

Speaking as a constitutional monarchist, I strongly disavow this message. Our constitutional monarchy in the UK works so well precisely because the monarch is a ceremonial head of state, not an absolute ruler.

The British monarch is more than just a ceremonial head of state. In theory they have the power of royal assent (formally approving an act of the legislature or withholding the same). But in reality royal assent has become little more than a formality. When was the last time the British (or Dutch or Norwegian) monarch withheld assent? The 18th century? This veto power used to be used regularly by European monarchs, but is rarely used now because of the fear it would create a constitutional crisis. I don't see much point in having a ceremonial head of state with no real (use of) power. I could only support a constitutional monarchy with a head that could regularly withhold assent and check the legislature without causing a crisis.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't see much point in having a ceremonial head of state with no real (use of) power.

Conservatives like the late Sir Roger Scruton argue that even the ceremonial/symbolic aspect functions as a counter reminder to the passions and demagogery of modern politics. It reminds people that power does not ultimately come from the people. Divine right of kings was much abused, but it got one thing right: right comes from God, not the electorate.

True, the British monarch cannot actually do that much right now. On the other hand, future generations will know who QEII was. They probably will not know who Harold Wilson was.

 

[Northern Crofter]

the British monarch cannot actually do that much right now

They can, but they don't - I think that's the issue.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The British monarch is more than just a ceremonial head of state. In theory they have the power of royal assent (formally approving an act of the legislature or withholding the same). But in reality royal assent has become little more than a formality. When was the last time the British (or Dutch or Norwegian) monarch withheld assent? The 18th century? This veto power used to be used regularly by European monarchs, but is rarely used now because of the fear it would create a constitutional crisis. I don't see much point in having a ceremonial head of state with no real (use of) power. I could only support a constitutional monarchy with a head that could regularly withhold assent and check the legislature without causing a crisis.

So, you have admitted that it is de facto a ceremonial head of state? I am not really sure that withholding royal assent does not mean that it is largely a ceremonial role. Besides, there is value in having even a ceremonial head of state that has little or no power. For one thing, it means that you have a head of state that is apart from party politics. Anyway, let us not get sidetracked with this issue. The basic point is that the British monarchy is not an absolute monarch.

 

[ZackF]

One reason why I dislike democracy is that it is fundamentally based on the principle that the people of the nation hold the power even if those people voting have no information or education in the matters on which they are asking to vote on. Most people vote for what is best for them or what they want rather than what is best for the nation or the common good.

One reason I dislike monarchy is that it is fundamentally based on the principle that the monarch of the nation holds the power even if the monarch ruling has no information or education in the matters on which he is asking to rule on. Most monarchs vote for what is best for him or what he wants rather than what is best for the nation or common good.