So a few days ago I asked Veeky Forums to attempt to argue why democracy is better than monarchy...

There is literally nothing wrong with being a cuck.

>kings dont have courts

and i will say again, there is nothing wrong with armed revolt. people dying for a cause makes it a lot harder to forget than squeeling politicians petitioning for change. why is the civil rights movement so prevalent in america? because mlk jr died for the cause. the womens suffrage movement is often overlooked in american history classes. no one gave their life for that movement. people dying gives meaning and remembrance to a movement

I would argue against Hirohito; the japanese military was effectively running the state, and the monarchy had little actual power other than to throw a bit of influence over which cabal would really run the country.

Willy and Nicholas are good choices though, and you can add in a bunch of others, like Henry VI, or Muhammad the second of Khwarzam.

How did Nicholas fuck up? He was a recluse, but not an idiot. He was just stuck in the same place Louis XVI was.
Hirohito was an Emperor, not a Monarch. He had his people to impress.
And Wilhelm.. I'll give you that one.

monarchists and democrats are both cucks. the only difference is democrats get to choose who's gonna subjugate them

>there is nothing wrong with armed revolt

Yeah, that's not your decision to make on a society wide basis. I personally and quite a few others think you're a fucking idiot and will never condone a society where that becomes a required feature of the political process.

The civil rights movement happened half a fucking century after the woman's suffrage movement. That's why its more talked about you goddamn dipshit.

Holy fuck, I sincerely hope not all monarchists are as stupid as you are.

>believing in the hirohito was a dindu with no power meme

Might as well start posting about how nukes were war crimes and that Pearl Harbor was an act of self-defense.

Nicholas could have begun reform meant to take the wind out of the would-be revolutionaries, much as how they did in Germany when Bismarck was Chancellor.

>substituting personal insults with an actual arguement

the revolutionary war happened long before the women's suffrage movement and people still talk about that, dont they? i wonder why? maybe its because people gave their lives in an armed revolt???

>How did Nicholas fuck up?

I love Nicky as much as anyone else, but you've got to be memeing to ask this. Remember the Russo-Japanese War? Russia went to war while strapped for cash; Nicholas often ignored the advice of his ministers, and believed Russia's might would never be overcome by Nips, as well as letting the war drag on even after casualties mounted just to spare himself the humiliation. Then you have the Revolution of 1905... No, he really fucked up.

>How did Nicholas fuck up?
Was getting executed by Bolsheviks part of your plan?

>Hirohito was an Emperor, not a Monarch.
You know you have to be 18 or older to post on this image board, right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor
>An emperor (through Old French empereor from Latin: 'imperator'[1]) is a monarch

>and i will say again, there is nothing wrong with armed revolt.

>why is the civil rights movement so prevalent in americab? ecause mlk jr died for the cause.

>MLK dies on April 4, 1968
>Civil Rights act is passed July 2, 1964

Hmm, I guess it worked because of political action taken by him, and others while living, not because of one assassination much after the fact.

> the womens suffrage movement is often overlooked in american history classes

I don't know what history classes you take, but in the ones I did, it's not.

henry.mpls.k12.mn.us/u_s_history_syllabus_11th_grade

>2. Students will analyze the debates about woman suffrage and demonstrate knowledge of the successful campaign that led to the adoption of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote.

>people dying gives meaning and remembrance to a movement

Yeah, that's why nobody remembers the French Enlightenment, nobody studies Florentine sculpture or Italian art patronizing, and nobody talks about the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. constitution. Because nobody died.

A Monarch is the personification of a country, the law embodiment of a nation, and the domestic symbol of a realm.

While, yes, an Emperor is all of these, he has one more task.
He is the Might of his people. An Emperor cannot be weak. There are many weak Monarchs, but no Emperors can so weakness.
That is why Empires fail easier than Monarchies.

Can show*

You'd be wrong. Pearl Harbor was definitely an escalation to hostilities away from economic influence, and damn stupid to boot. Strategic bombing was not a war crime by the conventions of WW2, and more effective strategic bombing is therefore not a war crime either. (And the nuclear weapon's effectiveness is questionable) And I'm not saying he was a saint, I'm saying he was a puppet.

>>BTFO
The important thing is that he got (You)s, and this thread will too. In that respect, OP "won", which is why he made this thread, and will make another one later, regardless of what is said here.

Because it was the fucking birthpoint of the nation and an important point in national propaganda.

Canadians talk a lot about their national confederation too even though it was completely fucking bloodless.

Kek Emperor is literally just a different (higher) title than King, structurally they are identical.

>A Monarch is the personification of a country, the law embodiment of a nation, and the domestic symbol of a realm.
>While, yes, an Emperor is all of these, he has one more task.
>He is the Might of his people.

Where did this come from? Your ass?

>Hmm, I guess it worked because of political action taken by him, and others while living, not because of one assassination much after the fact.

the civil rights movement didnt end with the civil rights act. if it did, king wouldnt have been in memphis helping out a civil rights protest to raise garbage workers wages. you could argue the civil rights movement is still going on today, although the BLM monkeys are the polar opposite of mlk and his crew.

>I don't know what history classes you take, but in the ones I did, it's not.

in elementary school it was never talked about, nor was it talked about in middle school. we spent one day going over it in highschool and thats it. however, i learned about the civil rights movement and the revolutionary war in both middle and highschool.

>Yeah, that's why nobody remembers the French Enlightenment, nobody studies Florentine sculpture or Italian art patronizing, and nobody talks about the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. constitution. Because nobody died.

of course a lot of things are remembered without people dying. but ask any highschooler and from their knowledge they can tell you a lot more about the revolutionary war and the civil rights movements, movements people died in, than they can about the enlightenment and florentine sculptures

>>you need tons of people to run a democracy, tons of representatives etc
This can easily be turned into a plus by arguing that the democratic process, by involving many more people, both refines the quality of decisions themselves (see: commissions) and satisfies larger parts of the population by involving minorities.

>>on the other hand, for a monarchy to run you only need the king and some bureaucrats
>>less people working in gov't = more people with real jobs doing something actually productive
Compared to constitutional monarchies, the savings from a personnel standpoint would be minimal, and considering that monarchies need a reality show overhead to run, one needs to consider that new costs are created that might even surpass the costs of a few hundred parliamentary salaries, depending on how pompous the populace wants it monarch to be.

>Where did this come from? Your ass?

I'd bet money he's a 40k fag.

>What is every Roman emperor?
>What is Charlemagne?
>What is every Chinese Emperor?

An Empire is more militarily involved than Monarchies. You have to admit that there are key differences between Monarchy and Imperialism.

>the civil rights movement didnt end with the civil rights act.

No, but it also didn't begin with MLK's assassination. It's major legal triumph was well before public assassination.

>if it did, king wouldnt have been in memphis helping out a civil rights protest to raise garbage workers wages

That actually isn't a civil rights issue, at least not how it's defined in U.S. law.

>in elementary school it was never talked about, nor was it talked about in middle school. we spent one day going over it in highschool and thats it. however, i learned about the civil rights movement and the revolutionary war in both middle and highschool.

Why didn't they teach you proper capitalization and grammar? And no shit, issues of suffrage and discrimination are a bit more complicated than something like the revolutionary war: I certainly didn't hear about the civil rights movement in elementary, so I don't know what exactly you're trying to prove.

>of course a lot of things are remembered without people dying. but ask any highschooler and from their knowledge they can tell you a lot more about the revolutionary war and the civil rights movements, movements people died in, than they can about the enlightenment and florentine sculptures

Why the fuck is high school education the standard we're working by when it comes to trying to determine societal leadership? That's dumb as fuck.

>That's dumb as fuck.

Especially considering the widely varying standards of such in the USA.

>but ask any highschooler and from their knowledge they can tell you a lot more about the revolutionary war and the civil rights movements, movements people died in, than they can about the enlightenment and florentine sculptures
That is probably heavily dependent on where the highschooler is from and what their interests are. Just because YOU remember violent events more than non-violent ones doesn't mean everybody does.

>An Empire is more militarily involved than Monarchies.

Most Chinese emperors were barely involved with their militaries, and often were disastrous when they broke that policy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis

You also had plenty of monarchies that were intimiately involved with their armies, starting with the Roman Kingdom, the 13th century Mongols, and Sparta.

All started out as military states to begin with.

What is your point?

Every state starts out as an army or some armed force that conquers a territory. That's true for republics, monarchies, empires, theocracies, and whatever else.

The literal definition of a modern Westphalian state is rooted in its monopoly of organized violence. The involvement of the head of state in the military

A) Has nothing to do with the origins of said state

B) Is completely unaffected by whether the head of state calls himself a king or an emperor. How involved was Victoria in the British Empire's military?

>No, but it also didn't begin with MLK's assassination. It's major legal triumph was well before public assassination.

youre right, but king was the head of the movement. his assassination is what makes it so memorable. im sure if susan b anthony was killed during the womens suffrage movement, more people would talk about it to this day.

>That actually isn't a civil rights issue, at least not how it's defined in U.S. law.

that actually was a civil rights issue

>Why didn't they teach you proper capitalization and grammar? And no shit, issues of suffrage and discrimination are a bit more complicated than something like the revolutionary war: I certainly didn't hear about the civil rights movement in elementary, so I don't know what exactly you're trying to prove.
>And no shit, issues of suffrage and discrimination are a bit more complicated than something like the revolutionary war
>issues of suffrage and discrimination
>suffrage and discrimination
suffrage = women's suffrage movement
discrimination = civil rights movement
if theyre both equally as complicated, why is the civil rights movement the ome thats more taught and talked about? does the death of its highly influential leader have anything to do with it?

>Why the fuck is high school education the standard we're working by when it comes to trying to determine societal leadership? That's dumb as fuck.

doesnt have to be highschoolers. go to any college campus or office, the results will be the same

>his assassination is what makes it so memorable.
No, I'm pretty sure the civil rights movement would still be pretty damn famous even if MLK lived to a ripe old age. Anyway, there is no way to prove this.

>im sure if susan b anthony was killed during the womens suffrage movement, more people would talk about it to this day.
A fuckton of people already talk about, it is extremely famous, I'd say as famous as the civil rights movement

You do realize the revolutionary war has been a central feature of state-funded propaganda since your country first became a thing, right? A narrative of good-hearted rebels fueled on enlightenment ideas fighting a thieving monarchy is pretty useful for national pride. Whereas women rallying together to get this supposedly equal country to allow them to vote is not as useful. The civil rights movement will likely take a similar backseat in the national narrative in half a century as well.

Who cares how well it's remembered if it achieved its goal? Also besides that the women's suffrage movement is definitely talked about today so I don't get your point?

There are countries, such as the Greeks, who started out as simple communities and they would call the head man King, and they would go with that for generations.
Some people were more involved in their country's military right than others, and it just so happens that all the military-based ones called themselves Empires.
Look above, and Victoria was a woman who was the Might of her people, which coincidentally, she wanted them to be frou-frou as all hell.
But they still had the world by the balls.

>youre right, but king was the head of the movement.

He wasn't even the head of the black segment of the Civil Rights Movement, he shared that role with people like Malcom X. There was no one "leader" at all.

>his assassination is what makes it so memorable.

Not really. The results it achieved make it memorable. Ghandi did more and he managed to do it without people dying; and his own assassination is usually treated as an afterthought to his career.

>im sure if susan b anthony was killed during the womens suffrage movement, more people would talk about it to this day.

I'm not.

>that actually was a civil rights issue

No, it isn't. The Poor People's campaign was strictly economic and multi-racial. It was not rooted in race, national origin, religion, color, or sex. Therefore, it was not a Civil Rights issue.

>if theyre both equally as complicated, why is the civil rights movement the ome thats more taught and talked about?

It isn't.

>does the death of its highly influential leader have anything to do with it?

Not really, no, since you're starting from a false premise.

>doesnt have to be highschoolers. go to any college campus or office, the results will be the same

Know how I know you've never been to a university level history grouping?

>it just so happens that all the military-based ones called themselves Empire
That isn't true at all.

>the Might of her people
Is this a meme? What does it even mean? It's certainly not part of any definition of Emperor I've ever read.

Seriously, what are you even arguing? That is a monarchy is militarily involved, it isn't a monarchy? That basically rules out all of them

i have to disagree, i moved a lot as a kid and i went to many different school across america. violent events are the majority of what kids are taught in american history classes. a standard ciruculim is to teach about wars in chronological order and sprinkle in civil history along the way.

aka in my 10th grade history class our units were as follows:

1. revolutionary war
2. war of 1812
3. mexican-american war
4. world war 1
5. world war 2
6. cold war

schools base their units and ciriculums off of wars, violent history, so its only natural that kids would remember more violent history than civil history

>What is every Roman emperor?
The emperors of the 5th century were not at all militarily involved.

Also, what is every Japanese Emperor?

>now people are latching onto "monarchism" in their scramble for ideological hipsterism

this alt-rightist wave is getting out of hand

At least he's not an anarcho-monarchist.

1. That is not how my high school education went at all (and I also moved around a lot). Looks like it's your anecdotal evidence against mine.
2. There is more to the world than the United States

Canadian here, is this just an American thing? My history lessons (we call it Social Studies, I recall it including some philosophy and sociology as well) when I was in school were largely focused on the civil history of places, with wars being relative side-notes. Canadian history was mostly focused on the expansion of British trade in the area (though to be fair, there's not much else to focus on, it would be hard to stretch the Metis rebellions and our involvement in WW1 through an entire school curriculum).

Only a matter of time.

>Canadian here, is this just an American thing?
It's not even an American thing, it depends on your state, school district, or even what your teacher is interested in. My education in US public schools was more similar to yours than what this faggot is describing.

Monarchy is a form
of Government of endless possibilities that upholds the natural fact that some people are greater than others and some have greatness thruster upon them.
I didn't say that Monarchy wasn't militarily based, though I will admit I digressed from my point. Hirohito did what he did to pronounce his people the greatest over all others, which is what Empires tend to do.
You can't use Hirohito because he didn't do what he did for the stability of his people, but the superiority of them.

Correction, I think we only call it social studies for the early portion of education before branching into the specific subjects. I can't quite remember, it's been a while since I was in school.

Not the guy you were responding to, but at least where I was in America, we had something similar; We had "Social studies" in elementary school, which was a mish-mash of history, geography, certain types of literature, and basic civics.

Later on, at around 6th grade (11-12 age of students), those things branched off into different subjects handled individually, except really geography which just kind of got dropped.

>You can't use Hirohito because he didn't do what he did for the stability of his people, but the superiority of them.
So the only monarchies that count are ones who do stuff you agree with? Nice.

Also:
>form of government based on idea that "some people are greater than others" = good
>going to war based on idea that some people are greater than others = bad
Hmmmmmmm

>A fuckton of people already talk about, it is extremely famous, I'd say as famous as the civil rights movement
maybe you live in a special part of america, but no one talks about it anymore.

>wasnt leader
>shared leader position
choose one

>No, it isn't. The Poor People's campaign was strictly economic and multi-racial. It was not rooted in race, national origin, religion, color, or sex. Therefore, it was not a Civil Rights issue.

you need to brush up on some real facts, bucko. perhaps with the exception of 10 at most, all of the garbage workers were minorities, who organized a protest and carried signs saying "i am a man", which clearly shows theres more to it than economics. they were not only protesting their low wages, they were protesting their working conditions and the way they were being treated due to the color of their skin, therefore it was a civil rights issue. furthermore, if it wasn't a civil rights issue, why would they ask king, a known civil rights protester, to come help them out?

>Not really, no, since you're starting from a false premise.

you do know you have to be 18 to post here, right? youre claiming that kings assassination had no effect on the civil rights movement. i dont know what to say to such an idiotic claim other than go to bed kiddo

Because race wars are what your people call "bad".

Yeah, looking back, I think it's the same in Canada. As I said, it's been a long time since I was in school.

>greater than others and some have greatness thruster upon them.
Both could also be said about dictatorships.

Also, the former could be said about any system where a person gets to be the head of state, so it works for democracies, too.
In fact, elective systems allow to select for people that had greatness thrust upon them much easier. In monarchies, dice are rolled and all you can do is to hope that greatness was thrust upon them.

The latter also springs from ideas we now think to be wrong ("I deserve to be king because I am chosen by God"; "I am great, therefore all my offspring MUST be great").

What?

>youre claiming that kings assassination had no effect on the civil rights movement
Not him, but this is such a blatant strawman. He was saying that King's assassination was not (as you assert) the only reason why people remember the civil rights movement, not that it didn't matter at all.

He shared the leadership position of a sub-set of the movement. Can you fucking read?

>perhaps with the exception of 10 at most, all of the garbage workers were minorities, who organized a protest and carried signs saying "i am a man"

It was more than just garbage workers, the movement was more than just king, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

>they were not only protesting their low wages, they were protesting their working conditions

That's still economics.

>the way they were being treated due to the color of their skin,

[citation needed]

> furthermore, if it wasn't a civil rights issue, why would they ask king, a known civil rights protester, to come help them out?

Because he had a proven track record of getting local authorities to listen to street protests, and was sympathetic to their cause?

> youre claiming that kings assassination had no effect on the civil rights movement

Actually, I'm not. But given your clearly sub-optimal reading skills, I'm not exactly surprised you missed the mark, again.

I'm saying that the civil rights movement isn't talked about more than the women's suffrage movement, and that therefore your claim (That the former is more widely taught than the latter because of King's death) isn't even a meaningful statement.

>i dont know what to say to such an idiotic claim other than go to bed kiddo

You could go back to the third grade and brush up on your reading skills. Maybe even figure out how to capitalize words.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying either, and I guess maybe I wasn't clear at all. But in my post I really meant the 6th statement (About the false premise) to be a follow up from the 5th (that the civil rights movement is not more talked about than the women's suffrage movement), and should have connected them more clearly.

>HURRRRR
>BEBOPBOPBOPBOP

etc...

>Because he had a proven track record of getting local authorities to listen to street protests, and was sympathetic to their cause?

Towards the end of his life, King also came to focus less on race issues and instead on economic ones.

The comparison to dictatorships hurt, as both are despotic, however a republic can be called Oligarchic. A base principle in Monarchy is that accident of legitimate birth. With a Monarchy, they are taught from they're birth how to run their country. My favorite is Louis XI of France.
Meanwhile in elections, you have self made, self funded megalomaniacs jockeying for power.
And who says the offspring of great Monarchs can't be great? Henry the XIII, crazy though we was, was beloved by the English, and he had three great children. Edward, Bloody Mary (who's legislation carried on into Elizabeth's reign), then Elizabeth.
But without him, the War off Spanish succession would've never begun. Plus, the aristocracy learned the harsh effects of careless imbreding. Charles, you were ordained by God, you tried, and I love you!

Henry VIII*, sorry

>If not for a shitty monarchical system, there would've been no civil war!

Ummm...

The Habsburg's are pure evil to me, so it was a good thing.

I'm biased, sue me

>Maybe even figure out how to capitalize words.
crucifying me because i don't hit the shift key is almost as autistic as a woman getting angry at another women because she wore the same color as her

>It was more than just garbage workers, the movement was more than just king, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
no clue what you're trying to argue here. the protesters in memphis consisted of the garabe workers and those who supported them (mainly minorities also).

>the way they were being treated due to the color of their skin,

[citation needed]

did you not read the "i am a man" part? if someones protesting with a sign saying that, they obviously feel like they're being treated like a sub-human.i dont think its too much of a stretch to say that they felt like they were being put down due to the color of their skin, saying as a climate back then in the south was very racist and anti-black

>
I'm saying that the civil rights movement isn't talked about more than the women's suffrage movement, and that therefore your claim (That the former is more widely taught than the latter because of King's death) isn't even a meaningful statement.
perhaps it's whatever school you went to and whatever area you live in, but the schools i went to barely covered the suffrage movement and went balls deep into the civil rights movement

>
I'm saying that the civil rights movement isn't talked about more than the women's suffrage movement, and that therefore your claim (That the former is more widely taught than the latter because of King's death) isn't even a meaningful statement.*

for the last one, im autistic

You talk about monarchs as if they were angels with absolute power. Even the ancient Greeks knew about the sword of sword of Damocles. When the only way to deal with a bad ruler is their death, well sometimes people take actions.

Besides which both kings and their courts have a long history of corruption as sordid, if not more than modern republics.

What the fuck is even this ^ conversation?
Just because his name was King doesn't mean he's a suitable topic in a Monarchy thread.

>. With a Monarchy, they are taught from they're birth how to run their country
You could just create a ruler cadet college, to prepare selected actually gifted children from early age for ruling, if you care so much about preparing young children to rule, despite the biggest leaps in development in capabilities happening much later, even for monarchs.

There is zero reason to tie rulership to birth, rather than capabilities.

>And who says the offspring of great Monarchs can't be great?
I highlighted the word "MUST" to symbolize the belief that from noble birth (being chosen by god, being infused by some godly essence) there would be an extremely high or inevitable chance that one's offspring must be a great monarch, which modern genetics would disagree with, not that a monarch can never be good.

>Meanwhile in elections, you have self made, self funded megalomaniacs jockeying for power.
Man, you are being uncharitable. If you want to play that game, I could just turn every trait around and paint the image of a noble, perfect beings like you are doing for monarchs, but that'd be a huge waste of time.

>crucifying me because i don't hit the shift key is almost as autistic as a woman getting angry at another women because she wore the same color as her

I'm crucifying you because your low standard of literacy literally makes it hard to argue with you. You are both difficult to understand and continually mis-state my points, indicating you have trouble reading them.

>no clue what you're trying to argue here.

Color me surprised.

>. the protesters in memphis consisted of the garabe workers and those who supported them (mainly minorities also).

The protestors in Memphis were not an isolated event and were not the only ones protesting, in a movement headed by more people than just Dr. King. I have no idea why you're ignoring them.

>did you not read the "i am a man" part? if someones protesting with a sign saying that, they obviously feel like they're being treated like a sub-human

I ignored it, because you still haven't cited it.

>saying as a climate back then in the south was very racist and anti-black

It was also quite anti-poor too.

>perhaps it's whatever school you went to and whatever area you live in, but the schools i went to barely covered the suffrage movement and went balls deep into the civil rights movement

So your entire argument is based around an anecdotal experience of whatever school you went to? And you're using THAT as basis for an entire social theory as to what causes things to be historically influential?

read the thread you fucking normie

I can't escape the feeling that we truly lost something by killing/rejecting the monarchs. It's hard to explain, but they were symbols of our culture, of our history, a clear direct link to our society now and the society of centuries past.

I don't think the people themselves were anything special (they had their great people and their morons, like anyone else), but the family, the institution, what they represent, a couple times when I get very drunk and am not with other people I think about it and it makes me so sad because we can never get it back. We could declare the Habsburgs, Romanovs, Hohenzollern, and Bourbons our kings tomorrow and it wouldn't be the same. We've lost it forever, and now we're just a collection of random nation states where the people have no sense of our own culture and will happily import millions of foreigners that want nothing more than to destroy it while insulting us for wanting to preserve our own history

youtube.com/watch?v=z7aayeV2WrE

>import millions of foreigners that want nothing more than to destroy it while insulting us for wanting to preserve our own history
Seems like all you hold in your mind are caricatures. Not surprising to like monarchism then.

>You are both difficult to understand
i've been using 5th grade vocabulary and havent typed any complicated sentences, perhaps you're the one with a reading problem? I suggest going back and starting with dr. seuss books, you might be able to follow those

>Color me surprised.
you were arguing literally nothing. saying "there were more than garbage workers". no shit mate, some families of garbage workers protested as well. you were getting at nothing.

>The protestors in Memphis were not an isolated event and were not the only ones protesting, in a movement headed by more people than just Dr. King. I have no idea why you're ignoring them.
show me where i said memphis was an isolated case. pro-tip: you cant, because i never claimed it to be. im not so autistic that i believe memphis to be the only protest in all of america at the time.

>I ignored it, because you still haven't cited it.

picture related is a clip from a documentary on the memphis protests

>So your entire argument is based around an anecdotal experience of whatever school you went to? And you're using THAT as basis for an entire social theory as to what causes things to be historically influential?
and your entire counter-arguement it based around an anecdotal experience of whatever school you went to?
saying you learned extensively about the suffragettes is the same as me saying i barely heard them mentioned in my school

That school thing, actually mashed my brain for a moment. Then what is the point of a free election? That's just a selective republic at that point.
I get the vibe you only came here only to troll Monarchists. I give you reasons, along with reasonable hypotheticals, examples. Yet you keep bringing up Divine Right, a subject I haven't even brought up. I haven't even said all Kings and Queens are perfect beings, but they are sure as hell made more good than bad. You haven't given me any argument besides "Monarchy is Stupid".

Cont. If you're biggest concern is the selection process, then I'm glad you aren't in charge of it. Too much worrying about "if" the Monarch is a bad choice. They all work out, and progressive people have always worked with it. Take Louis XV and Madame Due Pompadour, or Cecil and Elizabeth I.

My last thing,
Not all monarchs were these giants among men. Most of the time, they were just people who chose the most qualified people and worked with them, then just sat around, danced, and played cards all day.

>implying your president (or whatever bankers' puppet rules your country) is not lording over you

A Constitutional Monarchy is the only viable system. The Tradition, power, stability, and uniting force of the Monarch, and a democratic constitution, by God, that encompasses all people including the said Monarch.

It's simply a system of Checks-and-balances, the Rule of Law is in place to stop the Monarch/Nobility from abusing their power and developing into tyrants, and the Monarch creates stability and stops the masses, and their elected officials from becoming corrupt.

Remember though, God is our true King. All Laws and Rights inherently derive from him.

Absolute Monarchy is ridiculous, the English figured this out in the 13th century. Republicanism is also ridiculous.

I'd say that Nicholas and Wilhelm were the victims of bad advice and bad circumstances that verged on the outlandish.

Hirohito was practically powerless after the militarists takeover in the 1930s

Constitution is what monarch says.

This
Just that simple