Why are kings and queens idealized when in fact

It's probably the worst form of government as the people have no say in anything, stability is temporary at best, everything is owned by the ruling elites, justice is unlikely, and peaceful, competent succession is not assured.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SomeMichGuy · M

I think you have to distinguish between absolute monarchies and, e.g., the constitutional monarchy developed by the UK, where the monarch has powers which are quite limited (and the use of some would actually likely result in further limitation).

As others have said, the British monarch is the head of state, but not the Executive, unlike the US President.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@SomeMichGuy I thought the US President was the head of state?

SomeMichGuy · M

@FreddieUK Correct; I was in the midst of editing it and sent it early--thanks!

It's also interesting that the British monarch is the head of state in the Commonwealth (though the local governor-general usually stands in for the monarch).

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@SomeMichGuy I often send before I check and end up editing. I guessed it was a typo, but wasn't sure I'd missed something. Your correction makes perfect sense: thanks.

Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M

@SomeMichGuy So sleeping beauty's dad was an absolute monarch?

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@Tastyfrzz Almost certainly. History doesn't record how good a monarch he was mainly because he's not a historical character. But fairy tales can be instructive.