What's wrong with a constitutional monarchy?

What's wrong with a constitutional monarchy?

>monarchy
That's what's wrong.

expensive

The monarch cant do whatever they want.

Because the monarch would live a desperate life away from the people. Not having any connection to everyday people would put them out of touch with the rest of the country.

>constitutional
That's what's wrong.

degeneration over time from inbreed

that also admits to the president or every other state leader in a democracy.

As opposed to the leaders we have today? Bruh

that's the job of the bourgeoisie, of course.

kneeling before other people, somehow superior to you by simply being born
if that doesn't fill you with disgust immediately, your mentality is that of a slave

the problem are horrible successors. What do monarchists think about this problem?

Because it provides stable continuity of government and policy instead of the schizophrenic Roman/american style of endless crisis and reversal.

what do you do if the oldest son is a douche and a retard, though? what if he is a maniac and doesn't follow the long term plan he was supposed to go with?

What's the benefit of it?

Abdication.

You may see Prince Charles do so.

nigger constitutional monarchies are not stable, they are basically at war all the time.

>Gaben the jew removed the bone king

Thanks.

I think a house of nobles will always be able to make the right decisions. It's just when all power is with one person that you have doubts.

As opposed to you guys, right?

The monarch dies and is inevitably replaced by worse monarchs

This is the #1 issue with all monarchy, if you could find an immortal who is assured to not go completley insane and make them the leader you're all set.

Harder to destroy and a lot of people want to destroy things including themselves (self-hating sickos).

>o.p. asked about absolute monarchy
Republicanist education.

Are you retarded?

absolute is better

What is the power structure in a monarchy actually like? In theory the king can do whatever he wants but most likely it wouldn't be that easy.

republican governments are short lived and at the whim of the masses now.
Not true, monarchs will make better long-term financial decisions than temporary leaders. Presidents are driving a rental car and don't care about fucking up the engine, only the exterior. Monarchs own the car and want it to last as long as possible.
Every leader does that, most would be assassinated if they didn't. You only make a good case for minarchy (which isn't incompatible with monarchy).
We know about the genetic consequences of that now. Marrying one first cousin isn't going to hurt anything though.
>kneeling before other people
You don't worship a monarch, they are an arbitrator for the people. God put them there, and you are to respect the Will of the Lord.
That's what regency is for. If a monarch isn't fit for power, either parliament or the royal family installs a regent. The acting monarch can either retain the title, without authority, or be stripped of the title and banished if needed.
You can't know whether or not that makes them a bad leader. They have been trained their whole life for the role. If a King wants, he can skip a son for the role of King. Denmark had a sort of "electo-hereditary" monarchy where the Lords had to approve the Kings successor from his family. Read Hamlet.
A leader who cares about the nation as his property, unique leaders who wouldn't rise to power under normal circumstances, and a balance of power between, heritable, appointed, and elected roles.
Not true, many go back to the traditions of the generation that lost it. Kaiser Wilhelm II's father Frederick III was a liberal and Wilhelm returned to the traditional mindset of his grandfather, Wilhelm I. The best thing for the son of a monarch is to attend military academy and study philosophy.

> the king can do whatever he wants but most likely it wouldn't be that easy
That's basically it. Historically Kings of Constitutional monarchies have not been able to do thing that the parliament disapproves of.

>it's not true that you will get worse monarchs because eventually you'll get monarchs who were just as good too
You did not refute my point

Outdated system.
Enjoy your freedomless society

Does any form of government ever give impeccable leaders from decade to decade? You're being lied to if anyone tells you ideology X ALWAYS gives you a perfect leader.

>Your statment about monarchy being flawed is not true because every system is flawed and thus monarchy is not flawed
You did not refute my point

>The best thing for the son of a monarch is to attend military academy and study philosophy.

Doesn't always work. Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was a great philosopher and capable commander who had a vision about ultimate subjugation of germanic tribes, but despite all education and grooming for rulership (he even followed his father in war), his son Commodus turned out to be a massive fuckup who certainly did his part in setting Rome to a irreversible road to ruin.

You are right. It's a stupid point to make though. It's like saying
>"Why should I eat vegetables? They don't give you immortality!"
"They will make you healthier and make you live longer."
>"But I won't be IMMORTAL!"
"Immortality is impossible"
>"You didn't refute my point"

Interesting factoid, but a bad monarch can only do so much damage, especially if they are tempered by a parliament. I'm not an absolutist.

My point is more like this. Monarchy is like playing Russian Roulette, maybe the first time you pull the trigger nothing is going to happen. The hammer falls without hitting a primer and the chamber rotates naturally. You spin the chamber and try again, and once again the hammer falls without hitting a primer.

Monarchy works incredibly well assuming there is no bullet in the chamber, however eventually there will be one, and then the Monarchy will lead to the death of the state.

>Monarchy is like playing Russian Roulette
It's not. Every succeeding monarch is trained from birth for the role. If people couldn't take up their parents occupations after being raised their whole lives to do it, we wouldn't see family businesses or family farms. Monarchs have access to the nation's best minds.
>Monarchy will lead to the death of the state
Name one monarch who wasn't invaded that destroyed his nation due to economic or sociopolitical factors.

I'm also a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchist. The system balances very well because the people still have a direct elected say in government. Parliament should be the flame beneath the throne, keeping the king from idle rest.

Wouldn't that simply be fixed by having a constitutional monarchy? Each king has to follow a certain set of rules, likely written by the first king as a testament of his will: if he doesn't follow them, another royal successor rightfully takes his place.

No true Scotsman

It certianly alleviates it to some extent, however there are other issues. Namley either the powers of the Monarch are broad enough where that they will eventually be abused by someone in the line of succession over the course of the years, or they are so limited that they cannot really act or acting would essentially place them in a situation where they would subsequently be removed afterwords.

In the former system the issue is obvious, in the latter system the issue is that the Monarch isn't in a position to prevent abuse from the Parliament.

For example, let's say that the Queen of England knew that beyond a shadow of a doubt that leaving the European Union was the worst thing for the nation and decreed that Brexit was to be canceled? It's hard to say exactly what would happen, but form the Brits I've spoken to there's a very good chance that she would be removed from power for actually trying to decree that or anything similar.

In the end either you end up with a system where either the Monarch is either not powerful enough to be anything more than an elected official that was never elected, of they're so powerful that they effectively make the fact that the Constitutional Monarchy moot.