Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

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 »
ninalanyon · 70-79, T
peaceful, competent succession is not assured.
Sounds like a feature of several different systems including those in at least two countries right now.

everything is owned by the ruling elites,
This feature is independent of the political system.

Even here in supposedly egalitarian Norway the wealthiest 1% of the population own 24% of the net national wealth. The UK is actually lower at 21% yet has a constitutional monarchy that in practice has more power than the Norwegian counterpart. The USA is worse at 35%.

All three are nominally democratic countries.

The US is roughly the same as Russia which is a dictatorship, and much worse than the UAE which is a federation of nominally absolute monarchies (28%)

See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wealth-share-richest-1-percent

That kings and queens are idealized is also to a large extent independent of how much executive power they have. King Harald V is very popular as was Olav V before him, yet they have very little formal power.

I'm not defending the institution of monarchy and certainly not absolute monarchy but the features you list are not exclusive to monarchies.