why do you think monarchies are less common today?
347459
First of all, I would challenge that question.  Are monarchies really less common today?  Several countries still have active monarchs.  I think the real question is how has the authority of the monarch changed.  In many ways, monarchs are a traditional figurehead rather than an active leader.  \n\nI think there are 2 primary reasons why the grip of monarchs has been loosened.  First, many monarchs amalgamated the church and state to make one hybrid entity.  As a general rule, people don't like when church and state are a single force.  People like politics and religion to be separated.  Second, people's willingness to buy into "absolute supremacy" has changed.  Absolute supremacy means that a monarch was chosen by God Himself as His representative.  This logic just doesn't fly with people as it once did.  Perhaps the reason why people bought into that logic years ago was because if they disputed it, they committed both a political and a religious offense.
586902
Dear Friend,\n\nPlease see:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies#Current_nation_monarchies\n\nThere are 44 active countries which are one or another form of monarchy.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
960447
By definition, an absolute monarch has absolute power, so they choose when they go. \nSo if they are removed it is often by those close to them, in a 'palace coup'. Or by a rebellion of their own army. Or by an uprising of the people.\nIt's a bad system, because even if the people can rise up and overturn one absolute monarch, a lot of people can get hurt or killed in the process, and the next ruler may be no better.\n\nPeople sneer at democracy but at least we get a say in who rules us, we can change rulers and no-one gets killed in the process.
453891
Its the reading of world history, abuse of power & molestation of peoples' & even the human rights were the ordrer of Autocracy & Monarchism. Many examples of the recent past stand there in support of the records in history.  \nSo, democratic system is the better choice that can stop the emergence of Autocratic regime & Monarchism which has alway been seen as curse to the people. \nYes, God is always there for any system we follow or we don't.
390038
Titles of European hereditary rulers\n\nUntil the second half of the 20th century emperors, kings, grand dukes, princes and other hereditary rulers played an important role in Europe. The history of their titles and styles reflects the European political history.\n\nhttp://www.geocities.com/eurprin/
290508
That is because they are not a member of the British Commonwealth.  They have separated from England.  Commonwealth countries still have the Queen as the head of the government.  It is nominal at best though.  The Queen has no real official power, just a representative who acts as a figurehead and approves of legislation.  In Canada and other countries, it is the Governor-General.  Coinage has the Queen on them.
42335
Here in England we are highly amused by the strange views and opinions of the people in the USA. We are particularly confused by their desire to worship actors and by their very poor grasp of geography.\nOur monarchs do not rule us; they are 'left over' from our history. We are a parlimentary democracy. Of course nobody thinks royalty are superior, in fact I can fart much better than the Queen can - I just hope she does not read this else I'll be beheaded.\nBy the way, why are americans such bad spellers?
886623
yes i too beleive they are brain washed....this really does irritates the brits...but they know its true...they wld like to get rid of the royals but dont have the balls to do so. when u ask them they say its for the tourism....give me a break...what abt those countries with no royals but get soo many tourists than england???....im looking for that day when i will wake up and find that they have removed them....they need to live this is 21st century not 1400!!!
56604
No, it was lack of a coherent leadership. As the empire grew beyond its ability to manage itself, the government lost contact with its branches. In doing so, the democratic concept was being replaced by mini-monarchies. The last emperor of Rome was by coincidence the same name as the one of the founders of the eternal city, Romulus.
485050
You are absolutely right. There's been intermittent protest about this issue. One answer is that the style (title) of the monarch is a matter of royal prerogative, which trumps the union and settlement questions. In Scotland, she's now, technically, Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, but the style changes depending upon where she is and whom she's appearing on behalf of.\n\n[The response that asks if you're stupid is completely uncalled for. The user obviously didn't read and understand the question. It's a sad state of affairs when people get on their high horses, only to embarrass themselves like that. You've asked a great question.]
689830
royalty is always great, not necessarily England only. I'll try and say why i think so:\ntradition \nstability \nblood-linkage with other royal families of the world, that would make state unions or treaties easier to sign. \nthe idea of something worthy to sacrifice for\netc (you think of something)\nI am a firm supporter of royalty, although I live in a semi-presidential republic. my country has been for over 40 years under communism, but before that it has been a constitutional monarchy. maybe i haven't lived under the monarchic rule and maybe i am a little over-romantic, but that is how i feel. ban me if you don't like it
134966
That's true especially in highly developed countries since they are not replacing their population as fast as they are dying out.  Most of them have 2 kids at the most when several decades ago they would have 3-4 kids per family. When you go to these countries, you will hardly see any kids around. Kinda creepy if you ask me.
552617
you are not along in this thought but it does not means the same to every one in this country ,the diversity of people in the last 7o year has change . you know why is scary 70 year of bad international politics double cross , and 70 year of imposing  bad policy on country and ignoring that in 70 more year every thing comes down on the people and swiping everything under the carpet capitalism is good but at the cost of what. HISTORY TELL US THAT EVEN THE GREATS NATION DO NT LAST 4 EVER.
1056968
Yes , monarchy should go the way of slavery, outside toilets and smallpox. Let's make monarchy history.
838495
It is possible in theory. Of course it probably wouldn't be a very good thing if it did happen. But there would always be opposition to that rule, no matter what. No ruler has ever been popular with 100% of their population. And in current times, there would be a heck of alot of opposition to a singular ruler.
976530
Not sure but I think it was an elvolution from early tribal customs.  Most royals have their own money and holdings.  The reason they exist is that they draw attention away from the real power.  The politicians use them as cover so the public don't go nosey into their dealings.  Royals provide cover for their screw ups and back door deals.
1002598
no, i'm not satisfied with today's lifestyle.\nthough we might have increase in technology, science, etc.\nwe have a decrease in the qualities of life. more individu suffering, more broken family, more poverty.\ni do admire the neolitics era where people live in small community, independent, they fulfill their need themselves, they have lands (since industrial revolution, many people lost their land to small powerful people), they know each other neightbour very well.\n\nbut it isn't impossible to have those life qualities for present, everthing changes and evolves. the main problem for present is global inequality. greed capitalism. consumerism. environment crises. greed. ignorance. we just have to re-establish on our perception on meaning of life, the world.