Originally posted by Tptmanno1
But the alternative is still historically more beneficial.
How many good monarchs were there? A handful at most, Democracy and other forms of representational government have had a much longer history of success, from ancient Greece to the multitude of governments that utilize it now?
I'm not a blind supporter of "the american way" or any of that bullshit, I just know that a form of representation is better than the alternatives.
Not true, if you look at the Dutch history, with whose Royal family I am most familiar, you would see that when they were still the most powerful people in the country (technically not kings but as good as) most of them were loved. In 300 years, only 3 were not loved and removed from office. Seeing as they weren't kings this was quite a bit easier. The state could choose not to recognize their power any longer. Three times in 300 years isn't really that often. And there descendants were always called back because they were important enough.
Our first real king wasn't a mediocre king in popularity, but form that moment on most if not all have been popular. Of course sing our first real king we have been somewhat of a democracy but still.
Other kings have been popular in almost every nation in the world. However sometimes one of them ****s up and it usually ends up putting a bad name on the entire line, but if you see how long certain lines of English/German/French/Spanish royalty lasted you would see that many of them were indeed quite popular or at least good leaders who managed to do things with their country that no leader today could.
And that's the weakness of a democracy, it's limited in form time and power and thus no big chances can happen. Not for good or for the better. A king or a dictator can do those things, downside is that if they want to do bad things they are a bit harder to stop then a democratic government.