>>7641 (OP) No. In some monarchies, it's simply the case that the monarchy is predominately wealthy and owns the critical wealth (like the oil rich monarchies). If we're aiming for a full & simple monarchy, then without a doubt, people should get comfortable with the idea of the monarchy having such a portion of the state budget and wealth at his disposal. & those monarchies usually provide for the public. Probably the most grievous examples I can think of are the Shah of Iran or Bokassa's coronation & tbh that isn't enough altogether to make me say they should have been overthrown for that reason. Now constitutional monarchies today like the UK are making such a huge grievance over a tiny portion of the budget and the coronation, that a man like Charles III should have all that wealth and these titles by right of birth -- that alone is enough for the full fledged republicans to cry tyranny, even over a small consumption tax. If we allow monarchies to tax as much as our contemporary democracies, it should be more than enough even though people would call it the greatest tyranny because a monarch is doing it and not the pretense of the People doing it. Though even the rulers who have been historically deemed tyrants were more conscious about how much they taxed their subjects. Emperor Tiberius, for example, reprimanded his governor of Egypt for taxing too much. Tiberius said, >I would have my sheep sheared, not flayed. Anyways. >Is it right to remove him from office in hopes of another, better monarch taking his place? You hope, but that's not guaranteed. It could be the end of the Monarchy (in that case, don't count on a restoration) or a usurper who is even worse. If you browsed the board long enough, frankly said that is my position (& it is the fringe position, non-resistance and the absolute monarchist stance was routinely mocked well after the 1700s). That said, it's even more peculiar to me how constitutional monarchists are such staunch legitimatists well after a monarchy is overthrown and expect a restoration centuries afterwards, but for most of them the question of deposing a monarch is easy-pudding. -- That contrast between their staunch legitimatism & easy-going regicide *cough* tyrannicide calls doesn't have virtue in my book... loyalism for them (esp. with saintly martyr kings) is amplified after a monarch is overthrown, but the virtue of loyalism and keeping a tight belt through good and bad times should be there when the regime is alive. The absolutist stance is more sensible imo b/c there's dogged loyalism when the regime is still around, and then it is inevitably accepted once a regime is overthrown decades later and it's apparent they aren't coming back. Restorationism after 100+ years, no question about it -- is time to move on and consider new blood and new leadership.

Again, I personally don't think with Monarchy (tbh with ANY form of State) people should jump ship or abandon it at the first slight of inconvenience. People should expect to go through both good and bad times, not only good times perpetually (overthrowing a State because it hits a bump in the road is purist thinking and does more harm than any tyranny itself).

>>7641 (OP) I have always thought that absolute monarchy is not necessarily the best option. I would rather see a more decentralized monarchy with a return to a feudal structure where a noble class has responsibility for the common people under them. For example, in my county, there would be a count whose responsibility would be to maintain the county and protect the serfs (citizens) who live in it. Instead of a governor of the state, there would be a duke, and if the duke began to implicate policies detrimental to the citizens, this would be detrimental to his counts under him. They could either vote the Duke out, take up arms against the Duke, or bring the grievance to the King to settle the matter. For a monarch, it would be the same thing. Dukes and other higher nobility would keep an immoral and dangerous monarch in check. While superior to the rank below, each rank has a vested interest in the lower rank. Counts need the serfs to be happy and prosper because their stability and wealth depend upon the serfs. A prosperous serf leads to prosperous count and on up. A dangerous and immoral noble upsets this balance and leads to a check in his power, either from below or above. It is a self-healing structure.

>>7861 >I have always thought that absolute monarchy is not necessarily the best option. I will bring criticism from an absolutist perspective. This structure lacks monarchical pre-eminence. It is one thing to be a superior any one, but the quality of monarchical pre-eminence is greater than this: because the question poses, greater than any one, but less than altogether. A pre-eminent monarchy is not simply greater than any one, but less than altogether: a pre-eminent monarchy is great in comparison to the whole state. My opinion is as soon as we conceit the idea of killing a monarch (without even evidence of any injustice) it is sufficient proof we aren't in a state of awe or under the sway of any pre-eminence; no Christian would dare think disobedience or the capacity to cruxify & judge Christ, since Christ has pre-eminence over Christians... it is the same for monarchy or honestly any other leader. Communists never think to even overthrow Lenin or pre-conceive malevolent intent there. >I would rather see a more decentralized monarchy To quote Homer, ill-fares the state where many kings rule; let there be one ruler, one king. The ideal of monarchy in the grand scheme of political governance benefits from a unitary conception of politics. Otherwise, we revert to Aristotle's constitution, where monarchical rule over the political state itself is taboo & reserved in principle for the economical estate. This is counter-intuitive to the idea of monarchical rule in so many ways. >Dukes and other higher nobility would keep an immoral and dangerous monarch in check. We merely trade the virtues & faults of one system (monarchy) for the virtues & faults of another (oligarchy): it might put in check an individual, but there is still imperfections now not with an individual but with a group. Which might suffice to say, Aristotle's water argument, that a group is less difficult to corrupt than a droplet of water. I also consider Bodin's counterpoint, that a group can also dissolve virtue like salt in a lake and bring it down to mediocrity or problems of another kind (factionalism)... This might be a virtue if your conception of politics is pluralistic, but my opinion is a unitary view of politics works better with monarchy like a well suited glove fit for royal rule. Pluralistic idea of politics contradicts monarchy (which is, by definition, unitary & one-ruler)... it prefers monarchy as a building block among many other monarchs (one among equals), but this is to gradually return to the state Homer lamented about in the Illiad where many petty kings rule. >It is a self-healing structure. Aristotle's solution was a very strong middle class; because otherwise the poor could be convinced to overthrow the rich or the rich overthrow the rights of the poor. In Aristotle's reasoning, a strong middle class is content enough.

If you make a system where the folly of one person is no worry, that system likely ceases to be a Monarchy. People say, that if a Monarch dies -- disarray follows; but that is how you know it is a true monarchy.