The Prince of Wales

[Adrian II]

I think they don't teach us about it because it could worsen sectarianism etc, its easier to pretend it didn't exist and that Scotland has no history after William Wallace.

I do hope they pick up five centuries later and teach you about the Scottish Enlightenment though. I mean, there was no English Enlightenment, it was almost purely Scottish, wasn't it? And there must be a connection with Puritanism...

[SwordsMaster]

Bah. It's not just the man, it's the very institution itself.

Monarchy makes a mockery of our democratic system and values. We teach that everyone is born equal in standing. We elect our leaders and our representatives. Our society is based on the notion that the hard-working and smart people end up at the top, and noone will get far without hard work.

A king is born into his position. He has no need for any qualification whatsoever, from the moment he is born, he is chosen to be king. It really is shameful for our society to behave in this way.

To be honest, I think democracy itself has a pretty good track record of making a mockery of its own institutions.

And democracy can teach and preach whatever they want but the fact is not everyone is born equal - although I suppose the difference these days is genetic and economic rather than aristocratic.

In fairness if I could pick a head of government, I'd take Charles over Brown or Zapatero or Berlusconi, or even Merkel. He's highly educated, patriotic, has some kind of values, and he won't be grubbing money off the public coffers because he's only in power for 4-8 years.

[InsaneApache]

I'm no royalist. If the English civil war happened today I'd be right in their with me roundhead. However having said that, Brenda has been a very good monarch. She's seen prime ministers from Churchill to McRuin come and go and never put a foot wrong. An excellent example of a constitutional monarch.

The alternative is to have some career politico as head of state. President Blair! Oh pleeese! President 'so what' Balls or even President Thatcher. No, no, no. All dunderheads to one degree or another.

In fact the best arguement for keeping a constitutional monarchy is that no politician is acceptable as the head of state. After the expenses ferrago, Madge looks very good value for money.

[Furunculus]

67p/year i will willingly spend.

[Adrian II]

I like to think of Cromwell as sone sort of Napoleon. I hate the little dictator, declaring himself Emperor. Yet, I would've followed Napoleon to the ends of the earth and into the depths of hell.

The power of persuasion, eh?

[HoreTore]

BAH! It wasn't that...!!!

I just mean the Bible says honour your leader, no matter who they are...

Nonsense.

To be honest, I think democracy itself has a pretty good track record of making a mockery of its own institutions.

And democracy can teach and preach whatever they want but the fact is not everyone is born equal - although I suppose the difference these days is genetic and economic rather than aristocratic.

In fairness if I could pick a head of government, I'd take Charles over Brown or Zapatero or Berlusconi, or even Merkel. He's highly educated, patriotic, has some kind of values, and he won't be grubbing money off the public coffers because he's only in power for 4-8 years.

Then the simple solution is:

Vote for him. That's all I ask. We have a democracy, we elect our rulers. If you want a King, fine, put it up for a vote, if 51% of the country agrees with you, then all will be good, won't it? If not, well, that's simply the will of the people.

[SwordsMaster]

Then the simple solution is:

Vote for him. That's all I ask. We have a democracy, we elect our rulers. If you want a King, fine, put it up for a vote, if 51% of the country agrees with you, then all will be good, won't it? If not, well, that's simply the will of the people.

That's silly. Why would my opinions on who should be in power depend on the butcher or the barber or the taxi driver from 5 towns away? That makes no sense. And how qualified is the taxi driver anyway to decide who is the best person to represent the country's interests?

I think that voting should definitely be weighted if allowed at all, and it definitely should not be universal. Voting, after all is a privilege, not a right.

Just because I'm born somewhere doesn't give me the right to decide the political will of that country anymore than it gives me the right to decide the political will of its neighbours, specially if I don't have the insight to make a good decision.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do hope they pick up five centuries later and teach you about the Scottish Enlightenment though. I mean, there was no English Enlightenment, it was almost purely Scottish, wasn't it? And there must be a connection with Puritanism...

I see you've still been following stuff here in your absence, its a while since I commented on that.

Look, I do not have a nationalist bone in my body, but... the fact is that there was an Enlightenment which was based heavily in Scotland, and one which bore a lot of fruit in proportion to other states at the time. Why it should happen in a poor backward country is hard to tell, but it did.

And yes, I think there is going to be a connection with religion, just as all the other factors working in society at the time will have played a role in shaping the nature and success of the Enlightenment.

[HoreTore]

Never has the word "Gah!" been more appropriate...

[Viking]

That's silly. Why would my opinions on who should be in power depend on the butcher or the barber or the taxi driver from 5 towns away? That makes no sense. And how qualified is the taxi driver anyway to decide who is the best person to represent the country's interests?

I think that voting should definitely be weighted if allowed at all, and it definitely should not be universal. Voting, after all is a privilege, not a right.

Just because I'm born somewhere doesn't give me the right to decide the political will of that country anymore than it gives me the right to decide the political will of its neighbours, specially if I don't have the insight to make a good decision.

Well educated and experienced people may only know better if they have the same goals as the uneducated and unexperienced. If they don't, guess who's getting screwed over.

[HoreTore]

Well educated and experienced people may only know better if they have the same goals as the uneducated and unexperienced. If they don't, guess who's getting screwed over.

I wasn't going to respond to Swordsmaster, but hey, I'll leave a word:

Corruption.

The more we limit power, the more corruption we will have. Plain and simple. That's why every kind of dictatorship, aristocracy, etc is going to fail; it will always lead to corruption.

"But the British MP's just got caught", I hear you cry. Well, that's the reason democracy is far superior. They got caught. They won't get re-elected, and they won't have power anymore. In a dictatorship, everyone is free to steal as much money as they want, they're not going to face any consequences. In a democracy, they will.

[SwordsMaster]

Well educated and experienced people may only know better if they have the same goals as the uneducated and unexperienced. If they don't, guess who's getting screwed over.

So you're defending ignorance? Ignorance that gets to make decisions at a national level?

Corruption.

The more we limit power, the more corruption we will have. Plain and simple. That's why every kind of dictatorship, aristocracy, etc is going to fail; it will always lead to corruption.

Let's agree that power can lead to corruption in certain kind of people. Not all people in power are corrupt.
As I have pointed out before a man who holds a post for life is much less likely to be corrupt than a man who will only be in power for a limited time and must, therefore, steal as much as possible while he's near the money box.
On top of that, you are much more likely to have corrupt people in a multitudinary government than if one person holds power. That is a mathematical certainty.
Lastly, if you don't like your absolute leader you can try and kill him. Which becomes kind of futile if a new one gets elected from the same bench every 4 years.
Personally, I must point out there have never been such a thing as a corrupt king. There just hasn't because it doesn't make sense. Corruption for what? They are guaranteed life-long power! Why would they steal?
Even the Tsars of Russia in their day didn't collect as much money for their own needs as a percentage of total revenue as disappears in the pockets of crooked politicos every year.

And I'd like to point out that some of the most stable, sane and long lived states today are monarchies: Liechestein, Monaco, Netherlands or the Vatican. In fairness if we were to follow an example of government, the Vatican's would be the one to follow as it has survived for 2000 years. As far as governments go, that's a success story in my book.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And I'd like to point out that some of the most stable, sane and long lived states today are monarchies: Liechestein, Monaco, Netherlands or the Vatican. In fairness if we were to follow an example of government, the Vatican's would be the one to follow as it has survived for 2000 years. As far as governments go, that's a success story in my book.

3 of those 4 are exceptionally small states though, almost any government could last in them for a good length of time.

[Beskar]

It is amazing how simple the answer is and people keep missing it.

Why do we need a Head of State?

As for "near the money box..." you don't give them to power to raid it, therefore they can't.

A combination of transparency and accountability makes the politicians serve the people opposed to the people serving them. As for "Taxi Driver" are you trying to suggest Mr. Inheritance locked up in his study has a superior opinion and life experience compared to some one constantly in the streets, meeting and interchanging with others? If you want a more enlightened people, then enlighten people. You use the media to tell people what is going on, what the arguments are, and other things. Then that Taxi Driver knows as much as apparently others do.

[Ignoramus]

I think the strength of a constitutional monarchy, such as Britain, lies in the fact that there is a separation between authority and power.

In Britain, the PM is not the head of state, and thus is not the final reference point for the country. It also demonstrates to him that he is accountable to someone, namely the Queen.

In America, on the other hand, think of that from 2000 to 2008 they had George W. Bush as their head of state. You can argue that he was democratically elected which he was. But he had no one to be accountable to.

Also, the beauty of a historic monarchy of over 1,000 years, if that you can't plan to become head of state. It falls to you by accident of birth, which means you can't use it to raise your profile. Instead a massive responsibility is placed upon you. You know if you muck up big time, then the monarchy would be dissolved and you would bear the ignominy and shame of being the monarch who caused family rule of Great Britain to end because of your actions.

Finally, authority can be stronger if it's separated from power. Legally, the Queen has great power - she can dismiss any government she wishes at any time. However, without very good reason, that would naturally cause an uproar which would have dire consequences for her position. But the authority she exercises is far greater than any politician can.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Charles:
Hhmm. He didn't raise much of a discusion in this thread. At any rate, I myself do not have anything to add to what I argued in the first post: Charles, I think, is underrated and doesn't comply to the prevailing caricature of him.

Then again - such is the tragedy of the dehumanizing institute of monarchy - for a sixty-odd year old to be considered not devoid of talent solely by virtue of a few keen insights into architecture, heritage and conservation is simply tragic.
People his age are retiring. What has Charles got to show for his talents? Nothing of noteworthiness. A man with little future ahead of him and no past behind him.
Dehumanising.


Monarchy / Republicanism:
See above. I struggle to take monarchy seriously. How grown-ups want to be subjects is utterly beyond me. I'll never understand.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

BAH! It wasn't that...!!!

I just mean the Bible says honour your leader, no matter who they are...

Which is why I wouldn't even use the bible for erm...you know, when a man has done what a man sometimes does.

My point was, and this is what all tangents in this thread have in common for me (Republicanism, Indonesia, Puritanism, Cromwell, Scotland): never take your leaders for granted. Yes, respect the democratic, at least: non-tyrannical, institutes of your society, but never pay unduly honour to the persons wielding power. Authority must be laughed in its face. Revolution must always loom, so that you don't need it.

Inonesia lacks more of the spirit it showed in 1945-1949. As it stands, one foreign set of self-interested rulers were replaced by another set of self-interested rulers, this time domestic.

(Also, without it being relevant, I presumed you were Muslim).

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

The power of persuasion, eh?

Be quiet, Adrian, the adults are talking.

[Adrian II]

Be quiet, Adrian, the adults are talking.

Adults schmadults.

I'll see your Cromwell and raise you a William of Orange. Now there's a glorious revolution if ever there was one. After centuries of British infighting, the Wars of the Woses, all the useless squabbling about popery and anti-popery and other nonsense, a Dutchman sorted out those isles and whipped them into shape.

Barely one hundred years later they would beat your Nappie into a pulp. Ha!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Adults schmadults.

I'll see your Cromwell and raise you a William of Orange. Now there's a glorious revolution if ever there was one. After centuries of British infighting, the Wars of the Woses, all the useless squabbling about popery and anti-popery and other nonsense, a Dutchman sorted out those isles and whipped them into shape.

Barely one hundred years later they would beat your Nappie into a pulp. Ha!

Bah, and it takes a Dutchman to point it out.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which remind me, I must make a 12th of July celebration thread!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OK, I won't actually do that

[SwordsMaster]

3 of those 4 are exceptionally small states though, almost any government could last in them for a good length of time.

Fair enough, so are Spain, Sweden, UK, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, Norway. While some of the more unstable countries in the world are "democracies": Nigeria, Mexico, France, Sudan, Haiti, Colombia...

I agree that there are other factors at play here too, and yet the comparison is quite illuminating. It is my opinion that as someone said "People don't actually want freedom, all they want is a kind master."

As for "near the money box..." you don't give them to power to raid it, therefore they can't.

A combination of transparency and accountability makes the politicians serve the people opposed to the people serving them. As for "Taxi Driver" are you trying to suggest Mr. Inheritance locked up in his study has a superior opinion and life experience compared to some one constantly in the streets, meeting and interchanging with others? If you want a more enlightened people, then enlighten people. You use the media to tell people what is going on, what the arguments are, and other things. Then that Taxi Driver knows as much as apparently others do.

You can't have a government without access to public finances...

I'm suggesting that someone with superior education, worldliness, and broad view of the world who has been exposed to affairs of state since childhood will have a much better grasp of these affairs, yes. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be enlightened, or speaking against free education, just against universal voting. I believe voting should be restricted, and in the same way we keep people that are unfit to live in society behind bars, and we keep children away from sharp objects, we should keep people unfit to decide the country's future away from poll stations.

This will result in a more restricted and "elitist", if you will, political class. But that is a good thing. I can't see how the current political class can get any more barbaric.

Monarchy / Republicanism:
See above. I struggle to take monarchy seriously. How grown-ups want to be subjects is utterly beyond me. I'll never understand.

You see, Louis, it's not about being subjects, as that is inevitable. The difference is between trained masters and dabbling masters who change every election and disappear with a sizeable chunk of public money. It's about picking your poison.

It is true that the likes of Sarcozy, Putin, or Berlusconi provide much more amusement than Spain's or Saudi's royals...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'll see your Cromwell and raise you a William of Orange. Now there's a glorious revolution if ever there was one. After centuries of British infighting, the Wars of the Woses, all the useless squabbling about popery and anti-popery and other nonsense, a Dutchman sorted out those isles and whipped them into shape.

Yes, the Dutch invasion of the British Isles was instrumental in sorting that tumultous backwater out. (The English - a people easily swayed to revolution and upheaval. )

Thankfully, the Dutch conquest (which it was just as much as an invitation) succeeded. Owing of course to the two northern trade statelets of the Netherlands and Britain being so desperate to stop Louis XIV's adventures. Alas, what were mere frivolous foreign divertissements to the Sun King, to while away lazy summer afternoons, had the rest of Europe quaking in its boots.

For which I apologize.

We should not have used Europe as a forest, its statelets mere game to the frivolous hunting parties of our nobles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, the Dutch invasion of the British Isles was instrumental in sorting that tumultous backwater out. (The English - a people easily swayed to revolution and upheaval. )

That's so self-depreciatingly ironic I'd almost think you English.

Thankfully, the Dutch conquest (which it was just as much as an invitation) succeeded. Owing of course to the two northern trade statelets of the Netherlands and Britain being so desperate to stop Louis XIV's adventures. Alas, what were mere frivolous foreign divertissements to the Sun King, to while away lazy summer afternoons, had the rest of Europe quaking in its boots.

For which I apologize.

We should not have used Europe as a forest, its statelets mere game to the frivolous hunting parties of our nobles.

Ah, the Sun King, shame you couldn't produce more successful autocrats from the same gene-pool.

[Beskar]

I agree that there are other factors at play here too, and yet the comparison is quite illuminating. It is my opinion that as someone said "People don't actually want freedom, all they want is a kind master."

Any person who wants to is a fool.

You can't have a government without access to public finances...

Because you got a credit card, it doesn't mean you cannot withdraw from your neighbours bank account.

I'm suggesting that someone with superior education, worldliness, and broad view of the world who has been exposed to affairs of state since childhood will have a much better grasp of these affairs, yes. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be enlightened, or speaking against free education, just against universal voting. I believe voting should be restricted, and in the same way we keep people that are unfit to live in society behind bars, and we keep children away from sharp objects, we should keep people unfit to decide the country's future away from poll stations.

In majority of the world, criminals and mentally unwell (acute) cannot vote. So your statement is pretty void unwell you want to purposely be elitist.

This will result in a more restricted and "elitist", if you will, political class. But that is a good thing. I can't see how the current political class can get any more barbaric.

By introducing divides like that.

You see, Louis, it's not about being subjects, as that is inevitable. The difference is between trained masters and dabbling masters who change every election and disappear with a sizeable chunk of public money. It's about picking your poison.

That is very foolish. It is like going into a prison shower room, bending over and lubing up going "come and take me" suggestively with a wink.

[Strike For The South]

I kneel to Burger, King of whopper.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And I'd like to point out that some of the most stable, sane and long lived states today are monarchies: Liechestein, Monaco, Netherlands or the Vatican. In fairness if we were to follow an example of government, the Vatican's would be the one to follow as it has survived for 2000 years. As far as governments go, that's a success story in my book.

The Vatican is not a hereditary monarchy. It is an elected monarchy. As such, it is not really comparable with Liechtenstein, Monaco or the Netherlands. And distinctly incompatible with your preference for a massa 'who has been exposed to affairs of state since childhood'.
The Vatican's monarchy has not stable. It has been the subject of countless centuries of infighting between (the city of) Rome's powerful factions. Much like today's political parties, as it were.

Most elected monarchies have now dissapeared, because it is an unstable form of government. History. Most existing monarchies on the other hand, date from the 19th century:

The Netherlands started as...a proud Republic. This is what brought them their fame and wealth. The Netherlands has been a republic for longer than it has been a monarchy. The first ever monarch of the Netherlands was.....Napoleon's brother. That's right. Napoleon turned the Netherlands into a monarchy.

Monaco has been independent only since Monarchisms Great Century too. That is, the 19th century.
In the case of Monaco, 1861.

Liechtenstein is another 19th century monarchist product.

So in fact, precisely none of your examples are 'some of the most stable, sane and long lived states'.

Fair enough, so are Spain, Sweden, UK, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, Norway. While some of the more unstable countries in the world are "democracies": Nigeria, Mexico, France, Sudan, Haiti, Colombia...

I agree that there are other factors at play here too, and yet the comparison is quite illuminating.

This comparison is rather fruitless. Leaving those seemingly trivial 'other factors' unmentioned too, I shall suffice with a more meaningful comparison:

Monarchy - Republic:

Sweden - Finland
Canada - United States
Belgium - Germany
UK - Ireland
Denmark - Switzerland
Swaziland - Zambia
Morocco - Tunesia
Thailand - Singapore

You see, Louis, it's not about being subjects, as that is inevitable. The difference is between trained masters and dabbling masters

Being a subject, a mere pawn of the mighty, is far from inevitable. I am a man not devoid of talent, and could well end up in a position of influence in my government. As could, and do, many others. I am not cut out for a 'you kind massa, me good boy' attitude.

Here's one of those trained masters, another Charles, who had 'been exposed to affairs of state since childhood' as you say, and to which an entire state made itself slave:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Charles was the only surviving son of his Habsburg predecessor, King Philip IV of Spain and his second Queen (and niece), Mariana of Austria, another Habsburg. His birth was greeted with joy by the Spaniards, who feared the disputed succession which could have ensued if Philip IV had left no male heir.

Pedigree of Charles II. Note large amount of inbreeding.

16th century European noble culture commonly matched cousin-to-first-cousin and uncle-to-niece, to preserve a prosperous family's properties. Charles' own immediate pedigree was exceptionally populated with nieces giving birth to children of their uncles: Charles' mother was niece of Charles' father, being daughter of Maria Anna of Spain (1606–46) and Emperor Ferdinand III. Thus, Empress Maria Anna was simultaneously his aunt and grandmother.[1] This inbreeding had given many in the family hereditary weaknesses. That Habsburg generation was more prone to still-births than were peasants in Spanish villages.[2] There was also insanity in Charles' family; his great-great-great(-great-great, depending along which lineage one counts) grandmother, Joanna of Castile ("Joanna the Mad"), mother of the Spanish King Charles I (who was also Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) became completely insane early in life.

Since about 1550 AD, outbreeding in Charles II's lineage had ceased. From then on, all his ancestors were in one way or another descendants of Joanna the Mad and Philip I of Castile, and among these just the royal houses of Spain, Austria and Bavaria. Charles II's genome was more homozygous than in an average brother-sister offspring.[2] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. He may also have suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly.[3]

Consequently, Charles II is known in Spanish history as El Hechizado ("The Hexed") from the popular belief – to which Charles himself subscribed – that his physical and mental disabilities were caused by "sorcery". The king was exorcised, and the case of his exorcisms remains of the most sinister of the history of Spain.

Having learned to speak at age of four and to walk at eight,[2] he was treated as virtually an infant in arms until he was ten years old. Fearing the frail child would be overtaxed, he was left entirely uneducated, and his indolence was indulged to such an extent that he was not even expected to be clean. When his half-brother Don John of Austria, a natural son of Philip IV, obtained power by exiling the queen mother from court, he covered his nose and insisted that the king should at least brush his hair.[3]

An impotent, drooling imbecile. Kept on the throne for decades. This is what destroyed what was not long before the mightiest state in Europe.

[Beskar]

SwordMaster looks back at the good ol' days of the slave trade, after all, it was merely exchanging one master for another which also brought about a great economy with it.

People should be prim and proper and know their place. Only speak when spoken to, never disobey. Do as Master says and not as Master does.

[HoreTore]

SwordMaster looks back at the good ol' days of the slave trade, after all, it was merely exchanging one master for another which also brought about a great economy with it.

People should be prim and proper and know their place. Only speak when spoken to, never disobey. Do as Master says and not as Master does.

Indeedy. As for "not being any corruption in a dictatorship".... Well, that's just plain false. Call it Royal Gifts or whatever you want to, it was still money given directly from the state treasury to the Monarch's obedient friends, instead of benefiting society, like the vast amount of the treasury in democracies are. Also, please do a quick google for <insert random dictator here>+"swiss bank account". Also, when the monarchs raided the treasury, nothing happened. When politicans do it.... Well, have a quick looky at England.

But the very notion that the elite should rule is inherently ridiculous. Why? Because when we give one group of people absolute power, and remove it from another group of people, it will inevitably lead to them cementing their own position and not allowing anyone else in, be it an aristocracy, an oligarky, communist party, whatever. The ruling elite will have no incentive to raise others up to their own class, while they have every reason to do the opposite, because the more you have to share your power, the less power you get yourself.

The fact that the dumbest person on earth has the same power as the smartest person is the greatest strength of democracy. Simply because there is every incentive for the elite to spread knowledge around, and the goal will be to have every single person as intelligent as possible, as every idiots level of intelligence directly affects the way you live.

There will always be idiots. In a dictatorship, they will remain idiots. In a democracy, the intelligent should do their utmost to educate the dumber ones.

[Viking]

So you're defending ignorance? Ignorance that gets to make decisions at a national level?

Non. There is more than logistics when it comes to ruling a country. The question is what politicians should work for.

Perhaps the elite should decide that homsexual intercourse should be forbidden, as it increases the spread of HIV/AIDS, and thus reduces the labour force and weakens the country. Maybe this will have a severe impact on some people whom the barber or the butcher knows; such that they'd vote against any party that would implement this.

But obviously, it is not the lack of education that led the barber or the butcher to this opinion; because the question is a moral one, and not something that is related to education nor knowledge.

[Adrian II]

The Netherlands started as...a proud Republic. This is what brought them their fame and wealth. The Netherlands has been a republic for longer than it has been a monarchy. The first ever monarch of the Netherlands was.....Napoleon's brother. That's right. Napoleon turned the Netherlands into a monarchy.

Is this what they teach you in the finest schools in France?

Before we decided we'd had enough of them, we went through a bunch of dukes, kings and emperors. Three fine Charleses come to mind: Charlemagne, Charles the Bold and Charles V. None of them effeminate wusses like Louis XIV. Whatshisname, the only Valois ever to rule us, was a total failure.

Napoleon's brother Louis turned out to be an excellent choice, by the way. His smart and humane rule restored some confidence in the idea of monarchy in the country. But the restoration of the Oranges (and their elevation to absolute kingship) after Vienna was short-lived. In 1848 our then prime-minister send king William II a letter, saying that if he didn't want to go the way of Louis Philippe in France he had better accept a constitution and the principle of ministerial responsibility. Since then the Oranges have done a great job of opening shops, kicking off football matches and - brilliantly symbolic of their position - driving around in a Gilded Coach whilst waving at the public.

[Pannonian]

Indeedy. As for "not being any corruption in a dictatorship".... Well, that's just plain false. Call it Royal Gifts or whatever you want to, it was still money given directly from the state treasury to the Monarch's obedient friends, instead of benefiting society, like the vast amount of the treasury in democracies are. Also, please do a quick google for <insert random dictator here>+"swiss bank account". Also, when the monarchs raided the treasury, nothing happened. When politicans do it.... Well, have a quick looky at England.

But the very notion that the elite should rule is inherently ridiculous. Why? Because when we give one group of people absolute power, and remove it from another group of people, it will inevitably lead to them cementing their own position and not allowing anyone else in, be it an aristocracy, an oligarky, communist party, whatever. The ruling elite will have no incentive to raise others up to their own class, while they have every reason to do the opposite, because the more you have to share your power, the less power you get yourself.

The point is that the British monarch doesn't rule. She heads the nation, but she doesn't govern the state. While it's arguable whether head of state is a necessary position, if we didn't have a monarch, the most likely model we'd be having would be something like the US, and having seen the reverence that Americans show for their President, I far prefer the status quo of a non-politico in that role.