Can monarchs be removed?
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.
553344
They are a natural part of the environment. If you are proposing getting rid of them, I would like to review your plans first.
612031
Get rid of them both.
958597
Kings and Queens of which country??\n\nIn the olden days in some countries even brothers or cousins would seek to wrest the throne from each other.\n\nMany years ago the passage of the Monarchy became more civilised, following normal Line of Succession. Since 1700/1701 the Line of Succession follows that set down in the Act of Settlement as recently revised.\n\n>Can Royalty be evicted into the streets and some one else rule?\n\nWell, not necessarily into the streets. Just check what actually happened in Russia about 1918.\n\nAnd it might be said that "William the Conqueror" (also known by less flattering names) did take the Throne of England by conquest and crowned himself as King.\n\nUsually, though, there is an orderly succession. This is good. It provides stability for the country. Unlike countries who have a new head of state every four or eight years.\n\nThe UK's Royal Family has been in the "business" for over 1,000 years.
642828
no just to remove specific stains such as rust
468303
KINGDOM, KINGS, DYNASTY PATTERNS ARE ABOLISHED IN INDIA.\nNO MORE KINGS HERE..!
1171422
Try asking them to remove it first
824281
Monarchs have an effective chemical defense. When they eat milkweed, they sequester the poisonous cardenolides (also called cardiac glycosides) in the milkweed. Cardenolides are poisonous to vertebrates (although maybe not to invertebrates, bacteria, and viruses), and most Monarchs face little predation from frogs, lizards, mice, birds, and other species with backbones.\n\nBut being poisonous doesn't help the Monarchs after a predator has already killed and tried to eat them. Monarchs need some way to warn off predators before they become lunch. Monarchs do this through their warning coloration, or bright colors (yellow, orange, black, and white). This coloration warns potential predators that the animal contains poisonous chemicals. Warning coloration may work particularly well in adult butterflies because the hard body and wings allows a predator to bite the adult, taste the poison, and release the butterfly without killing it. It is common to see butterflies with beak-sized sections gone from their wings. Large wings help the butterfly escape relatively unharmed. Since Monarch wings contain distasteful cardenolides, one bite may discourage further attack without killing the adult.\n\nEarly studies of Monarchs showed that when a blue jay ate a Monarch butterfly, it vomited shortly afterwards due to the cardenolides. That bird also learned to never eat another Monarch butterfly. Like this early study, most research about Monarch predation has focused on bird predation, especially on adults, and researchers have found a few species that eat Monarchs despite the cardenolides. \n\nBird Predators\n\nIn the mid-1970s, scientists discovered Monarch overwintering roosts in Mexico. As they began to study these roosts, they found extraordinarily high mortality due to predation. Although researchers had reported some predation in California Monarch roosts before this, such high levels of predation spurred a number of studies investigating the species that preyed upon the Monarchs, ways those species avoided poisoning, the patterns of predation, and the impact of predation on Monarch populations.\n\nAlthough many birds live in the same area as the Mexican roosts, only a few feed heavily on Monarchs. Of 37 bird species reported in the region, 25 never feed on Monarchs while another eight only rarely eat a Monarch. Two species, Scott's oriole and Stellar's jay, occasionally hunt Monarchs, which means that small numbers of birds visit the roosts irregularly to feed on Monarchs. The two remaining species, black-headed grosbeaks and black-backed orioles, are the main Monarch predators. These two species feed twice daily at the roosts in mixed flocks of five to at least 60 birds and annually consume several million Monarchs in the Mexican roosts.\n\nBlack-headed grosbeaks and black-backed orioles have very different ways of avoiding poisoning when they eat Monarchs. Grosbeaks, which eat the entire Monarch abdomen, are relatively insensitive to cardenolides and can tolerate moderate levels of these chemicals in their digestive tract. Orioles, on the other hand, vomit after consuming much smaller amounts of cardenolides. They avoid poisoning by not eating the cuticle, which is where Monarchs store cardenolides. Orioles slit open the body and strip out the soft insides.\n\nOriole and grosbeak predation follows several patterns. For example, grosbeaks eat fewer female Monarchs than orioles. Female Monarchs have, on average, 30% higher cardenolide concentrations than males. Females, therefore, may be more toxic than males. Since orioles avoid the cardenolide-laden cuticle, increasing concentrations may not affect them. On the other hand, females also contain more lipids (fats) than males and therefore may provide more nutrients per prey item than males. Scientists still have not determined the relative important of these two different forces (avoiding poisons and obtaining nutrients).
1165177
Sorry, there really isn't a way to get rid of them.
993499
I would say yes. In theory, even in a constitutional monarchy, the constitution comes from the Monarch, and is of his or her will. This said, the monarch could regain executive authority if there was enough cause. This is actually the benefit of a monarchy. In Spain for instance, after the King was reinstalled, the army generals tried to stage a coup. The King asked all forces loyal to the monarchy to come to his and the nations aid. They overthrew the generals and because of the king, order was restored.
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.
254779
simply remove each individual item
140668
it depends on the material of the spot ! use the same group substance to delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!
334631
constitutional monarchy
483499
Yes, contact the seller who is selling the item.\n\nASk him you want to retract your bid. \n\nThe seller has the option to take you off the list.
556170
if there were, and they were removed, how would we know
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.