Too many.

 

Exactly.

Interesting, I knew about England, Denmark and Spain, but didn't know about the others.



I don't think I'd call the Vatican a Monarchy, more of a theocracy. Power is not transferred by heredity, etc. I could be wrong though, I'm not really read up on poly sci and I did not stay at a holiday inn last night.

Coming from a fellow American, that seems extremely ignorant.



 

What are you all upset about?

Not really.  The irrational hatred for monarchy some Americans have IS extremely ignorant, though.  So is the view that the move away from monarchy as it happened was a good thing, at least from the perspective of someone interested in liberty and good government.

There are two main kinds of monarchies in terms of succession.  Hereditary monarchies and elective monarchies.  Sometimes there is a bit of blending between the two.  Vatican City is an elective monarchy meaning the monarch is elected by a select body (although there are some ancient elective monarchies where the monarch was chosen democratically, although by a non-universal electorate).  Andorra is an elective monarchy as well.  The French general electorate chooses on Prince democratically (right now it is Sarkozy) and the other is chosen by a method closer to that of how the Pope is chosen (select group, religious in nature, as it is a particular Bishophric whose leader becomes the other Prince of Andorra); it is also a Co-Principality, which makes it rather unique.

Really? Explain yourself. How do monarchies further liberty and good government? Why did America as a nation spill blood to break away from an unjust monarchy if they were already so free and well governed?



 

I would rather dodge bullets everyday till I died horribly trying to overturn a monarchy than live under one.

JA!

Off topic....DK-Prof....how much mail do you throw in the trash...because they just can't seem to spell it right?

State of KY can't get it right....US Army coundn't get it right....the bank can't get it right...no one can get it right.....

And why is that? would you fight a monarchy in a free and well-governed country you lived in solely because it is a monarchy? If so, that makes no sense at all.  Do you hate monarchy so deeply 'just because' or do you actually have a valid and rational reason for such hatred?

I'd rather live under an absolute monarchy than democratic 'tyranny-by-majority'. A tyrannical autocrat is easier to get rid of.

The best thing about the monarchy is that it pisses off the communists.

I spent most of Thursday night on Wikipedia as well- was trying to tell the wife the differences between Earls and Barons and etc.

Interesting that George V (Elizabeth II's grandfather) changed the House name during WW1 because it was German.

Many monarchies in Europe, before the rise of democracy and socialism that deposed some monarchs and rendered impotent most of the rest, were very free countries, freer than just about any Western country is today, to include the U.S.  A Constitutional monarchy helps ensure checks and balances with at least one branch very interested in long-term proseprity and well-being of the country, as opposed to short-term thinking to win elections.  Freedom developed to the highest degree within these kinds of monarchies, and Americans inherited that development from Britain, which at the time was perhaps the freest monarchy in the world and one of the freest countries, if not the freest, in general.  Our ideas of liberty, that Americans, like Europeans, largely abandoned over time, are not native to this country.

The reason why we wanted independence was that the central government in London was restricting local rule, which was considered an inherited British right, it was engaging in harmful policies without colonial representation to counter it, the lack of representation itself for a place with such a large British population being considered a violation of yet another longstanding British right, and when the people in some of the colonies began to react more violently to such policies, other rights were trampled by the government in the name of stopping such action.  Parliament was as much to blame, if not more to blame, as the King.  In essence, the colonies were being treated almost like the whole of Britain had been treated under King James II, which had prompted a rebellion (which even reached the colonies) that had restored traditional British rights and deposed that particular King, replacing him with William of Orange.  Since the colonies could not effect change on their own through force of arms like in 1688, secession was the only answer, unless the grievances were suitable addressed (which they were not), to restore colonial rights.


It was not a fight against the institution of monarchy as such.  It was a fight against the policies of a specific government, a governmnt which was not dominated by the King; King George III was limited by the constitution regarding what he could do unilaterally.  Many of the Founders were themselves monarchists or at least sympathetic to the institution.  This country could well have been founded as a monarchy, which was why Franklin was asked what kind of country the Founders had given us after the Constitutional Convention.  A republic was by no means a certainty.  In the end the Presidency was modeled off of elective monarchies in terms of how he was chosen and his powers were based off of those held by King George III.