what do you think of monarchies ?
595725
Consitutional monarchies like japan and the UK seem to work.Absolute monarchies, now there`s (in my opinion) a bad idea.
760071
a monarchy is a type of government that is ruled by 1 individual...namely a king or queen.\n\nIt was used to benefit the king...what he said, went, no questions asked.  It also eliminated the middle man, the king said stuff and things happened, therefore speeding up the whole decision making process...either in a good way or a bad way.\n\nits structure:\n\nking at top\nthen church if applicable\nthen other nobles in the land\nthen peasants (ordinary people)\nthen slaves if applicable
529203
Revolution? Hmmmmm, wishful thinking.\nI wish I knew the answer to this one. I think that our (UK) society has to take a giant evolutionary leap and realise that actually, the royals are not all that great and that their vast wealth could be redistributed to make better schools, hospitals, public transport.\nIs it going to happen? That's another question....
28028
Absolute and Constitutional monarchies are radically different forms of government, each with its own positives and negatives. In a Constitutional monarchy, power is shared between the monarch and Parliament. This is a positive because the greed and desire for power of a monarch will be offset by the Parliament. In an absolute monarchy this is quite different. A monarch in this form of government is able to use his position for personal gain to the detriment of his countrymen. This can have a negative affect on the country’s status. Also citizens in countries with a Constitutional monarchy have more rights and freedoms, whereas citizens in countries with absolute monarchies often have restricted personal freedoms like Religious intolerance, which can cause internal instability.\n\nDuring the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries several European countries experimented with new forms of government. Two of these were absolutism and Constitutional monarchies. Absolutism is a government in which a king or queen rules with total power. The initiation of absolutism was made possible because countries were experiencing turmoil under existing governments. Religious wars, the decline of the church, and a growing middle class created a situation that demanded a leader to rule with complete power so as to restore order. Under absolutism the monarchs that ruled a country had total control because they believed they had a “divine right”. They believed that right was given them by God and bestowed upon them the power to control the county totally. They often defended their abuse of power by saying that it was God’s will for them rule. Also in an absolute monarchy the monarch makes all economic decisions. For example, Louis XIV of France abused his control of money by spending it on his Palace of Versailles.\n\nA Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen rules with limits to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament). A Constitutional monarchy was able to form in England because there was a lack of strong leadership.
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?
977628
The monarchy is larglely symbolic, so what does it matter if she is there or not?  As a matter of historical pride I don't think it would be a good thing to get rid of her.  They still have a democracy so what is the problem?
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
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.
1136428
Monarchs exist to represent their country without the burden of having to court public opinion in order to get themselves re-elected. They embody inherent cultural values: not a responsibility that most of us would be able to live up to. All societies are based upon hierarchies. Money and democracy seem to be implicitly justified as premises for power. Modern monarchs do not attempt to justify their status. This is why they are not hypocrites like politicians. (Yes I do support my Queen.)
673863
well i am not a very big supporter of monarchy no matter whatever country it is in.\nbut you guys in britain should be glad that your royal family atleast doesnt messes with the government and its running.\n\nthough i agree with you that spending so much money on the royal family serves no purpose but sometimes somethings are just part of your history and you cant do away with them.\n\nmaybe you could try abolishing the monarchy after her death.
1023288
Unfortunately, I am afraid most of us do.  In reality, we have an oligarchy.   And then we do have that "king" who usurped the throne.
780564
Aside from the king of Thailand, there is not a single monarch who has a significant influence on the political affairs of the country.  Thankfully, the Thai king doesn't have his head up his rump and actually does things that benefit the country.\n\nThe rest of them are a waste of space.  It's bad enough that, for example, the British monarchy does nothing, but to spend tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars on pomp and ceremony is pure waste.  \n\nTo allow barely 20 people to live in luxury while tens of thousands live in poverty (when the amount spent on the 20 would lift tens of thousands OUT of poverty) is a disgrace.\n\nAnd that's just England, never mind any other countries.\n\n\n.
239297
I would disagree with your claim that Monarchies are more stable. \n\nLook at Nepal, it's falling apart... the reason why one might think that Monarchies are more stable is that they are less frequent and therefore thier demise doesn't register in our memory compared to the collapse of Democratic systems.\n\nDid you know that Egypt was a monarchy for instance? and like the previous person who answered, many countries, including China were also monarchies? \n\nI believe that Monarchy System of Government is just like any other system, if the people are happy with it, it will will prosper, it not, then it would eventualy collapse. \n\nBesides, most of those countries you mentioned have no reason to be unstable, they're well-managed and thier people are living in relative ease. Why would people go through the trouble or even want to change the status quo?
993640
dropped dead is a bit harsh. How about tripped up and decided it was time to knock it on the head?\nAs I am in favour of getting rid of the entire collection of Royals I am probably not the best person to answer this...\nI think we should all have a  go at being monarch for a week and it could be televised, if youa re rubbish you get voted straight out if you are good you get an extra week.\nIt could be called One's Big Brother.
535361
King. Before the Magna Carta screwed it all up. :)
321603
a dictator comes to power from the outside,military or sometimes elected and then thake total control, a monarchy come to power through bloodlines, kings ,queens, princes,etc. and hands it down to the next generation. Most believe the were given the absolute rigt to rule from god. the outcome from both is always the same, the rule through fear
390407
Constitutional Monarchy