Objections to monarchy

[Distruzio]

Regardless, they lie beyond the oversight of the public electorate. Their appointments are for life. Their highest purpose is to serve a document as they, individually, interpret it to best protect the rights of the marginalized. You're connecting dots where there are none and ignoring dots where there are.

BEEP! Wrong, you're the one who is connecting dots that aren't there by saying an appointed, life term judge is similar in any way to a monarch besides not being directly democratically elected and servicing a life term.

Okay.

[Distruzio]

First and foremost, we must recall that some criticisms of monarchy equally apply to democracy itself. Although democracy allows the people some influence over the government, they do not and cannot actually run it. Even popularly elected governments are governments of rule from above. Thus the common trope of "authoritarian" governance being absent from a democracy rings rather flaccid. There is, in reality, no difference of substance between an aristocratic government and a democratic government, only degree.

At most this is a critique of representative, but not direct, democracy. And as others have said, degree is important.

Indeed. I should have made that more clear in the OP.

What the democratist actually complains about in this most common of tropes is divisiveness. But, I must ask, what is not divisive about an election? Are there not winners and losers? Is there not a victorious majority and an expropriated minority? A monarch, however, cannot symbolize defeat to supporters of other candidates, for there were none. He has no further political opportunities or ambitions except to perform his duties as monarch and perform them well in order that he might maintain the good name of his dynasty. A monarch stands neutral above partisan party politics. Obviously, therefore, a monarch is preservative rather than active. He secures his peoples freedoms.

There may not be further political opportunities (assuming a violent expansion of territory is out of the question) but there are certainly personal opportunities that a monarch can further, and is in a much better position to do so than a democratically-elected leader.

True enough.

[Distruzio]

Now that I will concede ever single time.

Then I will put a more in-depth opinion of a monarchy.

Now, I do consider myself romanticizing about the return of a Chinese empire. There's a lot of legitimate pretenders for the monarch to be re-established. It would certainly put pride in China back and me, being a Chinese descendant, would gladly return back there if possible. The current Chinese people's republic is a farce and the sooner it collapses, the better.

However, there's no guarantee that the same problems the empire faced will not return. There's no guarantee that a new re-established empire would solve anything. In fact, I would say it would anger the lower class even more. It would also create conflicts with semi-autonomous states such as Tibet, Macau, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. A newly found empire would also need the most experience bureaucrats, of which I can no doubt, would come from the former republic.

Now then, let's ignore those problems. Let's pretend that we have a wise emperor, and the new Chinese empire is a stateless monarch. Hell, let's pretend China can defend itself despite being stateless, from many other countries. Do you know what will go wrong?

Nothing.

This is the eerie part. Nothing would go wrong. It might even turn into a new golden age for China. I don't however, assume that all of the emperor's successor is going to be wise. Neither should you. Just like every other golden ages, it must end. It cannot be perpetual. This is what I notice about empires who had their golden ages, that they decline rapidly or slowly after that. This is because without problems, nations can't evolve. If we don't have some kind of conflict we must solve, we'll grow stagnant. That is my problem with your idea. If everything goes perfectly, it'll come down like a house of cards when it's not. For example, when one of the Chinese emperor was ousted, the was a new regent who was...unsuprisingly, unable to handle the situation. The Japanese was waiting to make war with them, the European nations wanted more of their land, and despite sweeping reforms made by the empress dowager, the empire was doomed to fail. The Chinese empire declined a long time ago and once that decline starts, it just can't stop.

It can't stop because declines in a monarch is hard to detect without the conflicts I mentioned. Historians agree largely that the Qing Dynasty declined in the 1840s. China could've fixed all of it's problems if they followed Japan, who were in contrast, able to modernize from a backwater agricultural country to an industrial powerhouse in less than 30 years. On the other side, we all know right now that the U.S Congress is not doing a good job. We know that because of the divisiveness. What you seem to think is a weakness of democracy, is one of the strongest perk of it.

Now with that said, Japan is a monarch, but it was in a civil war, called the Boshin war during the 1850s. Remember how I said they modernized? There was a, key word here, conflict in the country. Between traditionalism and modernization. That's not the point though. The point is that they had an internal conflict. Not everyone obeyed the emperor. They had a divided population. Funnily, only about 100 years later (1940s) when nationalism united the country and, well, you know how world war 2 ends.

I have history to back me up on this. Some political scientists noted correlations between the Chinese empire and the other empires that fell such as the Russian and the French. What you want from monarchy is what brings a monarchy down. So I'm not totally putting your idea to the garbage heap. I am pointing out that you want the worst quality of a monarch government.

Huh... You raise VERY interesting points against me OP. I've never seen them before. I like that.

So, from your perspective, democracy is preferable to monarchy because, through the political conflict, society prospers. That, I think, is a marvelous observation that, I'm ashamed to admit, I'd never considered. Hah! The fucking anarcho-capitalist who elevates the idea of prosperity through competition fails to apply that same maxim to the political realm.

This is a notch in favor of democracy I won't soon forget, Norstal. Well played.

[Distruzio]

OP

I guess my biggest stumbling block when trying to understand "right wing/conservative anarchism" (anarcho-monarchism, and then some other, a little crazier ideologies like anarcho-fascism...) is definitional. I'm a little confused on what "anarchism" and "monarchy" both mean and how your political theories function/qualify as both.

Eh, it's not really important in this thread. I just like introducing myself to folks.

So, in your OP, you just talked about how awesome traditional, western-style monarchism is (which, being a huge fan of Hans Hoppe, I agree with).

But my question is, in what sense does this system qualify as "libertarian" or "anarchist". If you just mean that monarchies implement more libertarian policies (the sorts of incentive structures Hoppe talks about in God that Failed), then I'd agree, but I don't see why monarchism is structurally more libertarian. I guess my biggest problem is that, if you're an antistatist b/c the state violates property rights (is violent, etc.), how is this system of monarchy any different in its (absence of) violation of property rights? Replacing democrats with kings may be desirable, but how is it any less coercive?

It isn't less coercive. It's simply less diluted and less institutionalized. Instead of the majority population pillaging the minority population, the monarch and his sycophants do the pillaging. You always know who is screwing you over. In a democracy, you have to suspect everyone as a potential looter and, in order to avoid being pillaged again, be prepared to pillage them the next election cycle, assuming that the minority becomes the majority.

Is your contention just that, in a system of moral respect for private property (anarchocapitalism), a "natural elite" (hoppe talks about this bourgeois aristocracy under ancapism) will accumulate a lot of wealth or something? Because I think that's distinct from a man/family barking orders to soldiers to enforce his taxes/laws on anyone living in the borders of "his" territory.

I fail to see how "anarchomonarchism" is any different (unless you just believe, as I said, that some people are naturally better/will become extremely wealthy... in which case, I don't think they're "monarchs"...) from "anarcho-dictatorship". It seems like a contradiction in terms. Why not just call yourself a monarchist and a (classical) liberal?

I agree. And I'm gradually dissecting my philosophy along grounds perpendicular to the grounds upon which it was built. As I hinted (vaguely) at in the beginning of the OP, it's an ongoing process that is far from over. Needless to say, I hear you.

[Distruzio]

For, the critiques continue... what if the monarch is a nutbag - a manifest danger to society?

Chances are, they'd either have been found to have been completely batty before they ascend to the throne, in which case they are promptly struck from the line of succession. If they go batty when they are already on the throne, in most constitutional monarchies, the ruling family will more than likely force them to abdicate.

Yup.

[Distruzio]

.... I think you misread that post, Mav. I said that "I stated a tendency". I did not say that "I said a monarch has a tendency" or any such nonsense. I didn't lie. I just made a mistake in forgetting a word.

No, you made a mistake in claiming that the implications of a tendancy are found in your post.

Essentially, what I am saying is continuity. I'm not dodging. You're just not thinking beyond outrage. A monarch isn't dependent upon being elected or reelected. Therefore he lies above and neutral on political concerns. Being beyond haggling and negotiating for the perpetuity of his political authority, the monarch represents more than his specific office.

That's the OPPOSITE of stating a tendancy. People use specific words and phrases to denotate tendencies, such as "generally." None of these are found in your post.

So once again, you blatantly lied.

Okay.

[Distruzio]

Scotus isn't elected. It's appointed by an elected officer. That tends to increase partisan political intrigue, sure. But it's certainly less intense than in, say, the congress. Alternatively, a monarch is far less likely (though, I admit, not entirely unlikely) to be interested in political partisanship.

But the repercussions if said monarch did partake in political partisanship could be distressing, considering the fact that a Monarch has a monopoly, per-se, on political authority.

Could be. You're absolutely correct.

Where do you want to go with this? I don't want to jump down the wrong avenue so... lead on.

[Forster Keys]

You're praise is, as always, well received and reciprocated.

As is yours sir.

Indeed, you're correct. If I spoke of the more purely democratic direct variation ONLY, then that would have opened me up to an avenue of discussion that I wasn't, in particular, interested in. I understand that liberal representative democracy cannot, necessarily, be defined by unitary direct democracy for the same reasons that stalinism cannot, necessarily, be considered the same thing as communism or socialism.

Understood and agreed.

Which is, interestingly enough, an observation so many of my detractors in this thread (and other threads where I have made my preferences for monarchy known) overlook in their haste to point a finger of shame at me. For them, monarchy is defined by absolutist monarchy. They might as well say that automobiles are defined by a Ford Ranger.

I'd rather just let them foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth while I address posters of actual merit.

I was under the impression you were in favour of a more absolute monarchy? What is your ideal variety?

Lolz. No. You don't. The "bleating" comment was, specifically, directed at those who bristle at any critique of democracy or praise of anything not democratic. You (and many many others on the site) do not... and I listen to each of you. The others... not so much. And they know when I'm ignoring them. They tend to rage about it.

Sorry I couldn't resist a good pun, or those either. But yes, "democratic" does not automatically translate to "good".

While I choose to identify with monarchy for religious traditions that you hint at here, there are several utilitarian reasons for a monarchy that I hint at in the OP. In order to avoid the ridicule you point out - which is quite valid, I must say.

Well I find them ridiculous in a sense, but perhaps that isn't the right word. More anachronistic or counter-productive.

I agree. Wholeheartedly so.

Welcome to the commune brother.

Mmm... I'd disagree only in specific connotations but that would sidestep your point - which I take. I didn't realize that I had put that implication in that paragraph. I'll have to remember not to be such an ass next time.

There was no assishness. I think the passion of the writing carried you away a bit. I'm often more than guilty of the same crime.

In monarchy there are checks and balances on the monarchs power and authority. Even in absolute monarchies.

Indeed, like the regency you mention. Unfortunately I was answering sequentially at this stage.

A monarchy need not be a multiparty state, which was my intended implication. While the case in individual monarchies currently existing are each unique wherein the authority of the sovereign is vested in a parliament or similar, this fact does intend suggest a tendency for the monarch to rise above the societal division that the democratist actually loathes. In order that society might enjoy a greater degree of solidarity and identity.

Yes, while there's always interest groups within a society and minorities, many monarchs have classically taken pride in their apparent ascension beyond classes as a "father of the nation". Nicholas the Last was a classic example. But in the end, as hard as he tried, his interests and the interests of society's divisions collided, and he sided with the nobility and the fledgling bourgeoisie against the workers and peasants. Whether or not this was his fault, justified, or lead to anything resembling a functioning society afterwards is beside the point I think. When push comes to shove, monarchs sometimes have to take a side...

I will, however, after discussions in this thread, admit that this is not *always* the case and should not be portrayed as though it were.

But I feel I'm preaching to the choir already.

Even if we assume your critique here is accurate (I would dispute it but, like so many "critiques" of my OP on the first few pages, my dispute would sidestep your actual point) then we must recognize that the monarch's powers and freedoms are represented by the prosperity of the nation and peoples over which he rules, would we not? If the monarch be self-interested, as you presume, then would it not, therefore, make sense for him to seek to increase the value of that which his progeny will inherit? A satisfied population is a more productive population, after all. And a more productive population can afford to pay more taxes to the monarch.

A more wealthy society perhaps, but this does not preclude the concentration of said wealth within a certain minority. Sure the people will be less satisfied, but force and ignorance kept them down for centuries, this is what I associate with feudalism and monarchy. Simple and brutish societal relations.

So it would be in the monarchs best interest to increase the freedoms of his people, in order that he might secure and preserve his own power. Thus adding stability and prosperity to his reign.

Perhaps so. But what if he sees differently?

I don't. But a stable cult that endures throughout the lifetime of the individual is much preferable to a new cult every election cycle.

I wouldn't classify them as proper cults of personality though. Obama might be popular, but he doesn't have enough control of the media to reinforce a cult of the type and magnitude that Emperors and dictators have had.

Of course it is. It'd be uncouth (to say the least) to point at a specific politician and say, "aha! That bugger right there? Fuck him!"

Works for me.

This has not been borne out historically. The regent has, more often than not, been a stabilizing effect during an unstable reign. I mean, sure, nutbags can come alongside nutbags, but the structure of power that guides a monarch does not institutionalize this as democracy does.

Stabilising? I agree. The worst time for an autocracy, particularly one with a cult of personality is a change of leadership. But whether monarchy institutionalises nutbaggery less than democracies?

ONLY grafters and liars succeed in democracy. To have an asshat surrounded by asshats of similar caliber every blue moon is, definitely, a better option.

The only argument I can think of to justify this point is the short terms and election cycles of modern statesman, and party politics. Basically career politics, which I despise. Politics shouldn't be a career for a minority. It should be grassroots.

No? Do tell!

Right now? I'm sort of changing I think. I'd call myself a collectivist libertarian, maybe a sort of anarcho-communist or libertarian socialist. I talk with Trots, and deal with society too much to consider the abolition of the state immediately desirable, but I hope for a time when it no longer needs to exist. In that sense I'm still a utopian. And sometimes I think my individual and private lifestyle is influenced by egoist anarchism.

Well, I'll admit that I'm a former (very minor) politician myself and that the ONLY people I encountered were the types that I, often, describe. Perhaps I allow my emotional rejection of politics as an admirable profession cloud my judgement here. I'll have to think about that.

Please do, because I've known more than one locally politician just like that, bit of a cunt as we say around here, and at least two family friends who seem fine, upstanding people.

I don't think so. Then again... I'm biased as hell.

But if you think about it all of today's "great figures" are from the past. A great general? Napoleon or Hannibal. A great scientist? Newton or Archimedes? Philosophers? Plato or Descartes. It's how it works.

Life = failure.

My ancestors are Irish, convicts and Aboriginals. So it'd be a tough job.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I do not like monarchies. I do not like monarchies because I do not have any legal means to oppose the monarch if I disagree with their leadership. I do not like monarchies because I do not have equal rights as the monarch, namely I am not entitled a say as to the rule of my country whereas they are. I do not like monarchies because they create a system were people are born unequal. I do not like monarchies because I like freedom, and monarchies are much less politically free than other forms of government, like democracies.

The only way I'd support a monarchy is if I get the same say in government as everybody else (in which case it's a republic) or if the monarch has literally no say in governance whatsoever and is nothing more than a figurehead.

[Phocidaea]

I have a few chief objections to monarchy, mostly on the basis that regardless of the monarch's power, it is a form of unapologetic state-sponsored inequality. The resident lefties might say "duh state itselllf is ineequalidee" or something, but whatever. At least a republic, no matter how much inequality it may have in reality, officially proclaims equality - monarchy is the last proper vestige of strict medieval codifications of class with absolutely no purpose but to keep the peasants totally inferior.

The OP's "Anarcho-monarchism" is inherently contradictory because a monarch requires the support of a state to be seen as legitimate. The reason no one gives two fucks about the pretenders to the thrones of non-monarchies (France, Germany, etc.), or at least minimal concern compared with the British Monarchy et al., is because there is no state power backing them. They might have all the stylings of royalty and nobility and a decent bit of family wealth, but evidently that's not enough to enshrine their legitimacy, so how could a few bums with zero historical precedent (at least France and Germany used to have nobility!) convince people they were their rightful monarchs?

[Biscayan Puntland]

I think UK is more democratic than USA

[Vazdania]

I think UK is more democratic than USA

The UK really isn't a monarchy...but okay...

[Augarundus]

Anarcho-monarchism is one reason why those of us on the left accuse 'anarcho'-capitalists not of wishing to abolish the state, but rather to privatize it.

This doesn't make any sense.

The proper objection to anarchocapitalism is that it would result in a new state, not that its set goals are the establishment of one. Anarchocapitalism is a utopian ideal - a world in which private property is completely and totally respected (the state is, by ancap definition, an entity which violates private property rights, meaning ancapism and the state cannot logically exist in the same world). True anarchocapitalism is likely not achievable - but it's a moral ideal toward which we ought to constantly strive, and we can, in the meantime, make the world a freer place by abolishing those entities (like the state) that do violate property rights regularly.

If your view is that anarchocapitalism will result in the rise of wealthy oligarchs (a la anarchomonarchism) who will become a new state, that isn't a reason why anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. It's a reason why anarcho-capitalism is unsustainable (if I claimed that anarcho[leftism] would result in the establishment of some populist dictator, that isn't a reason why that form of anarchism isn't really anarchism - only why it's unsustainable). It's no different than the claim that anarchocapitalism can't provide national defense services, so some foreign power would take over and a state would still exist.

That said, I disagree with these assessments and don't think they're relevant questions (I'm a "puritanical", deontological ancap - the consequences of ancap don't matter so long as the principle is respected. Rape may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean you should rape. The state may be inevitable - though I don't think so -, but that doesn't mean we need to participate), but they aren't reasons why anarchocapitalism isn't a form of anarchism or why anarchocapitalists want to preserve the state (by the way, how are you possibly justified in talking about what anarchocapitalists "wish" to do to the state? Regardless of how absurd anarchocapitalism is, what it's advocates truly want is unknowable to you). This isn't a reason why ancaps are 'an'caps or why they just "want" to privatize the state. Ancaps do not want a private state - they may want some functions of the state (dispute resolution, defense of property, etc.) to be provided for in its absence, but that's fundamentally distinct from a "private" state (I'm not even sure what that would look like or what it even means. A "private" state?). Left-anarchists want the same, no? These are services that must be provided.

Almost no anarchocapitalists are "anarchomonarchists" - I have no idea what anarchomonarchism is, Distruzio is the only person I know of who advocates it, and I seriously doubt this qualifies as 'anarchism', given that Distruzio has admitted anarchomonarchism would retain all the apparatuses of a state (including taxation, monopolistic law, legal hierarchy, etc.). As far as I can tell, there is no difference between this system and monarchism itself.

[God Kefka]

Monarchy is better... so long as it is divinely ordained.

The absolutist monarch system in Europe with divine rule was a pretty good idea...

Government will return to the days of church power... and the Lord's gospel will spread...

[Free Soviets]

Anarcho-monarchism is one reason why those of us on the left accuse 'anarcho'-capitalists not of wishing to abolish the state, but rather to privatize it.

This doesn't make any sense.

The proper objection to anarchocapitalism is that it would result in a new state, not that its set goals are the establishment of one.

except its set goals include the establishment of many new states. it just doesn't want to call them that. now, it is also the case that those an-cap states would almost certainly immediately become states much worse for human flourishing than the better of the ones we have today. but that is a second problem, not the only problem.

[Grave_n_idle]

There is, in reality, no difference of substance between an aristocratic government and a democratic government, only degree.

It's not degree, it's flavour. A democratic government could be more toward the 'authoritarian' end, or further from it - and so could a monarchy. The degree is not intrinsic and inherent in either model (although monarchy TENDS more towards authoritarianism) - so the difference between the two is NOT degree, but flavour.

Along this same vein of inane bleating against monarchy comes the condemnation of monarchy as a divisive symbol of inequality.

It is. It creates a distinct social rank - to which, in most forms of monarchy, most people cannot legitimately gain access.

The democratist, in making this critique, creates an idealistic society in which every individual enjoys the exact same status and from this status derives the same right, if not the same ability, to rise to the highest of political offices.

No, an ideal society is not necessary. This part is somewhere between a red-herring and a strawman.

Alongside a monarch comes, by necessity, the nobility - the aristocratic elite.

Not necessarily. You could have a monarch and no aristocrats.

Another false assertion.

They can provide an alternative to sheer wealth or notoriety as a source of distinction and so dilute the fawning over celebrities characteristic of modern democracies. If anything this rather disputes the claim of divisiveness in monarchy - it goes further still. Within this lens we see that it is democracy, not monarchy, that breeds a divided population.

Yet another false assertion - democracy doesn't have to create a divided population, but monarchy does.

Your claim isn't just false and misleading, but actually the exact opposite of the actual case.

So... for those who would argue that certain monarchies exist alongside democratic institutions I must point out that, among these nations, the monarch serves to dilute and otherwise guard against the democratic tendencies of the nation. Even in America there exists a non-elected elite for the sole purpose of protecting and ensuring the liberty of the population. This, I believe, is the utilitarian reason for supporting a monarchy. Beyond mere continuity and identity of the culture and heritage of the nation.

Ah, you see - 'checks and balances' is the one good argument in favour of a monarchy, and it really only works if there's a democratic state on which to impose those checks and balances.

The one good argument for a monarchy, and it's your throwaway gesture at the end. One assumes this is because you don't want your one good (true) argument to be the one that relies on the state.

What say you, NSG? Are there critiques of monarchy from a democratic perspective that I have missed? Have I been unconvincing?

You have been entirely unconvincing.

And I'm saying this as a monarchist. That's how unconvincing this is - you can't even convince monarchists.

[Dyakovo]

Name a functioning absolute libertarian monarchy- hell, a functioning absolute monarchy- that has preferable living standards to Western democracies and I'll listen.

Until then, I'm fine with my copy of La Marseillaise, capacity to elect who rules me, and principles of equality.

How about 12: the Principality of Andorra, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Principality of Monaco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of the Vatican City.

Funny... It appears that the only country from your list that is an absolute monarchy is Vatican City...

Absolute monarchies[edit source | editbeta]
Specifically, monarchies in which the monarch's exercise of power is unconstrained by any substantive constitutional law.
Brunei
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Swaziland
Vatican City[

[Dyakovo]

I think UK is more democratic than USA

The UK really isn't a monarchy...but okay...

The UK is most definitely a monarchy... You can tell by the fact that it has a monarch.

[Free Soviets]

The UK really isn't a monarchy...but okay...

The UK is most definitely a monarchy... You can tell by the fact that it has a monarch.

bah. when has having a queen ever made a country a monarchy?

[Mavorpen]

BEEP! Wrong, you're the one who is connecting dots that aren't there by saying an appointed, life term judge is similar in any way to a monarch besides not being directly democratically elected and servicing a life term.

Okay.

No, you made a mistake in claiming that the implications of a tendancy are found in your post.

That's the OPPOSITE of stating a tendancy. People use specific words and phrases to denotate tendencies, such as "generally." None of these are found in your post.

So once again, you blatantly lied.

Okay.

Forget silver medal debating, this is clearly gold.

[Vazdania]

The UK really isn't a monarchy...but okay...

The UK is most definitely a monarchy... You can tell by the fact that it has a monarch.

She has no powers.

"oh yes were a monarchy, but our queen has no powers."

[Vazdania]

Monarchy is better... so long as it is divinely ordained.

The absolutist monarch system in Europe with divine rule was a pretty good idea...

Government will return to the days of church power... and the Lord's gospel will spread...

This. Please This.

[The Parkus Empire]

Monarchy is better... so long as it is divinely ordained.

The absolutist monarch system in Europe with divine rule was a pretty good idea...

Government will return to the days of church power... and the Lord's gospel will spread...

This. Please This.

How do you verify that someone was divinely ordained?

[Mavorpen]

The UK is most definitely a monarchy... You can tell by the fact that it has a monarch.

She has no powers.

"oh yes were a monarchy, but our queen has no powers."

Yeah this is bullshit. The queen does have powers and can even grant public officials powers.

[Distruzio]

I have a few chief objections to monarchy, mostly on the basis that regardless of the monarch's power, it is a form of unapologetic state-sponsored inequality. The resident lefties might say "duh state itselllf is ineequalidee" or something, but whatever. At least a republic, no matter how much inequality it may have in reality, officially proclaims equality - monarchy is the last proper vestige of strict medieval codifications of class with absolutely no purpose but to keep the peasants totally inferior.

The OP's "Anarcho-monarchism" is inherently contradictory because a monarch requires the support of a state to be seen as legitimate. The reason no one gives two fucks about the pretenders to the thrones of non-monarchies (France, Germany, etc.), or at least minimal concern compared with the British Monarchy et al., is because there is no state power backing them. They might have all the stylings of royalty and nobility and a decent bit of family wealth, but evidently that's not enough to enshrine their legitimacy, so how could a few bums with zero historical precedent (at least France and Germany used to have nobility!) convince people they were their rightful monarchs?

1. My OP was NOT about anarcho-monarchism.
2. There are, indeed, historical precedents for my philosophy. The United Arab Emirates and it's political structure, Spain and it's current political structure, the Papacy and the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, and... *drum roll* anthropological studies of "big man" societies among Pacific Island cultures. Even the Holy Roman Empire fits, tentatively, within the definition of my own anarcho-monarchism.
3. Once more, my OP had nothing to do with anarcho-monarchism.