Why do people think that a constitutional monarchy has to be hereditary?

Why do people think that a constitutional monarchy has to be hereditary?
You can also elect the monarch. It's been done plenty of times in the past.
This is what, I find, is missing in the discussions on the abolishment of the European monarchies.

If you care enough about democracy or republicanism to elect your leader what possible benefit is there to elect a 'monarch' instead of a citizen head of state? Having him serve for life? Your system just sounds like an illiberal democracy ala Russia or Zimbabwe

I unironically think Robespierre did nothing wrong and has been wrongfully slandered.

Who said the elected monarch has to have actual power?
I'm just saying that it might be better for the national celebrity to be chosen by the people.

what's the point of bothering to go through an election process if the person has no power?

the thing you want exists in the form of shit like american idol and other pop culture trash

So convienience is the only thing that matters?
Even if it means giving one family a status above the law?

How is that not just presidency for life? The alteration I can think of is to have the candidates from one family, but whats the point at that point?

what? being above the law is literally having power

>The alteration I can think of is to have the candidates from one family, but whats the point at that point?
This has been a thing in some countries for centuries
To the point that it's not even mentioned in history books

>every Roman Emperor that was adopted by the previous Emperor turned out to be great
>every Emperor spawned through heterosexual sex by the previous Emperor turned out to be a piece of shit
you're onto something

>being above the law is literally having power
I meant political power. Which they don't really have but at the same time are free to break the law because they're not a subject to it.

again, I dont really see the point here. What sort of thing would they be able to do that would be even remotely useful to people in a way that would make them want to vote for them having power above law, if it isnt political?

Caligula and Nero were adopted.

Gordian III? Basil II? Constantine V? Hell, Constantine I?

You could for example elect a famous artist or a scientist for the post. Someone that people would be realy proud of, someone with achievements.
Instead of haing some random guy who was lucky that he was born in the right family.

Just give a random family the power to be above the law? Why? What possible purpose could that serve? Except to illegitimately give someone the right to claim they're better.

What are you saying? You're sdescribing a status quo.

>You can also elect the monarch.

Enjoy your never-ending civil war among pretenders. Primogeniture hereditary monarchy was the most stable form of transition of power at the time.

You say here you want to give a family some sort of elected position to be above the law. Why? What purpose would that serve? To simply be a figurehead who is more powerful than others?

Yeah, just like hereditary monarchy causes the same kind of conflicts between different members of the dynasty today.

Oh wait.

Elected monarchs weren't elected by the demos they were aristocrats elected by other privileged members of the aristocracy.

No I didn't. I described how it is in current monarchies. You're reading too much into my post.

Where did I say that I want them to be elected by all citizens?

Well its an important distinction since the liberal writing that influenced the French Revolution was against the arbitrary privileges of the church and the aristocracy over the ascendant demos so one of the first things the revolution did (even before officially ending the monarchy) was abolish titles and privileges of nobility. Why would the citizenry 'compromise' by letting the privileged classes elect a monarch for them when the citizenry was ardently against the concept of nobility in the first place?

propaganda
>Gordian III
cut down while still young
>Basil II
>Constantine V
byzantium was not rome
>Constantine I
reunified empire, good emperor

Where did I mention aristocracy? Indirect election usually means having an electoral college.

Again. Why?
Why would the movement seeking to abolish privileged classes and reconstitute governments based around the rights of man and meritocracy jump through hoops to find some pseudo-democratic way of keeping the monarchy intact?

What's the point of electing a symbolic leader? If you want that, then just go for parliamentary presidential system. In an actual monarchy, sure, elected leaders with power could work out, but in a nation like the UK? Why depose the current line, which has a blood connection all the way to Alfred the Great, and all the history and connection to the country that that comes with, to be replaced with some person?

Robespierre was a fagot.

>Why depose the current line, which has a blood connection all the way to Alfred the Great, and all the history and connection to the country that that comes with, to be replaced with some person?
>muh bloodlines
>wanting some inbred fucks to rule over half of the world