Monarchs are nothing but dictators in velvet cloaks.

[Czardas]

And democratically elected presidents are just dictators who managed to con a majority of the voters into picking them. Your point?

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

And democratically elected presidents are just dictators who managed to con a majority of the voters into picking them. Your point?

Good point

[Zabum]

The majority of monarchs are trained since the childhood how to be good monarchs. Theoretically it should make them better rulers than simple dictators. But I am not sure that it works in practice…

[Maurepas]

And democratically elected presidents are just dictators who managed to con a majority of the voters into picking them. Your point?

...Or were appointed SCOTUS and the House,

[Schwabenreich]

Theres two ways I can disagree to the original post.

One as many have pointed out is that monarchs can be ceremonial in which case they have not the authority to be a true dictator.

Nearly all are only about five are absolute

The second one is a more semantic level. Monarchs have been known to dress in a wide variety of attire, not just the old velvet cloaks but many would dress in military uniforms that were, not of velvet or purple. A monarch is much more then a dictator as they have a fancier title, a long and documented heraldry and their right of claim is often vouched for by some deity.

So true

I see you added in "Nearly all are only about five are absolute", good point, but the fact that non-absolute monarchies do exist defeats the generalization used as a topic title.

Right,I shall list the absolute monarchies :Brunei · Saudi Arabia · Swaziland · Vatican City

The thing is, there are titles for monarchies that many consider segregated from absolute only in name. As in they claim to be something else yet run as an absolute monarchy. You also forgot Qatar.

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

The majority of monarchs are trained since the childhood how to be good monarchs. Theoretically it should make them better rulers than simple dictators. But I am not sure that it works in practice…

Ah but look at King George VI whose brother gave up the throne and so he had no experience

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

Theres two ways I can disagree to the original post.

One as many have pointed out is that monarchs can be ceremonial in which case they have not the authority to be a true dictator.

Nearly all are only about five are absolute

The second one is a more semantic level. Monarchs have been known to dress in a wide variety of attire, not just the old velvet cloaks but many would dress in military uniforms that were, not of velvet or purple. A monarch is much more then a dictator as they have a fancier title, a long and documented heraldry and their right of claim is often vouched for by some deity.

So true

I see you added in "Nearly all are only about five are absolute", good point, but the fact that non-absolute monarchies do exist defeats the generalization used as a topic title.

Right,I shall list the absolute monarchies :Brunei · Saudi Arabia · Swaziland · Vatican City

The thing is, there are titles for monarchies that many consider segregated from absolute only in name. As in they claim to be something else yet run as an absolute monarchy. You also forgot Qatar.

Ah I forgot the Emirate of Quatar

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

The majority of monarchs are trained since the childhood how to be good monarchs. Theoretically it should make them better rulers than simple dictators. But I am not sure that it works in practice…

Ah but look at King George VI whose brother gave up the throne and so he had no experience

This has happened a few dozen times in 1200 years, so I'm comfortable with saying that's a rare scenario at best.

[Fassitude]

Ah but look at King George VI whose brother gave up the throne and so he had no experience

The spare as well as the heir receive schooling and training.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Ah but look at King George VI whose brother gave up the throne and so he had no experience

The spare as well as the heir receive schooling and training.

That depends on the royal house. In the Hohenzollern dynasty, for example, the heir was trained in administration and general academics, while the next oldest went into the military.

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

The majority of monarchs are trained since the childhood how to be good monarchs. Theoretically it should make them better rulers than simple dictators. But I am not sure that it works in practice…

Ah but look at King George VI whose brother gave up the throne and so he had no experience

This has happened a few dozen times in 1200 years, so I'm comfortable with saying that's a rare scenario at best.

Yes I know but it is inexperience and look how he turned out he pulled the Great Britain out of World War 1

The spare as well as the heir receive schooling and training.
Of course they get schooling but they don't get the same training the crown prince/princess

[Schwabenreich]

Theres two ways I can disagree to the original post.

One as many have pointed out is that monarchs can be ceremonial in which case they have not the authority to be a true dictator.

Nearly all are only about five are absolute

The second one is a more semantic level. Monarchs have been known to dress in a wide variety of attire, not just the old velvet cloaks but many would dress in military uniforms that were, not of velvet or purple. A monarch is much more then a dictator as they have a fancier title, a long and documented heraldry and their right of claim is often vouched for by some deity.

So true

I see you added in "Nearly all are only about five are absolute", good point, but the fact that non-absolute monarchies do exist defeats the generalization used as a topic title.

Right,I shall list the absolute monarchies :Brunei · Saudi Arabia · Swaziland · Vatican City

The thing is, there are titles for monarchies that many consider segregated from absolute only in name. As in they claim to be something else yet run as an absolute monarchy. You also forgot Qatar.

Ah I forgot the Emirate of Quatar

Also Swaziland and Oman.

[Rhinoplastiasts]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

Except for the whole 'I'm better than you due to birth' part of it.

Or, to quote Mark Twain:

The institution of royalty in any form is an insult to the human race.

...

A Prince picks up grandeur, power, and a permanent holiday and gratis support by a pure accident, the accident of birth, and he stands always before the grieved eye of poverty and obscurity a monumental representative of luck. And then -- supremest value of all -- his is the only high fortune on the earth which is secure. The commercial millionaire may become a beggar; the illustrious statesman can make a vital mistake and be dropped and forgotten; the illustrious general can lose a decisive battle and with it the consideration of men; but once a Prince always a Prince -- that is to say, an imitation god, and neither hard fortune nor an infamous character nor an addled brain nor the speech of an ass can undeify him. By common consent of all the nations and all the ages the most valuable thing in this world is the homage of men, whether deserved or undeserved. It follows without doubt or question, then, that the most desirable position possible is that of a Prince. And I think it also follows that the so-called usurpations with which history is littered are the most excusable misdemeanors which men have committed. To usurp a usurpation -- that is all it amounts to, isn't it?

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Like Abraham Lincoln, right?

Most politicians seem to be lawyers; just like Abraham Lincoln. I think that leads to a very limited and very particular view of problem solving, which is why we have this mess. Law is largely a zero-sum game in which one side loses and one side wins. Your job as a lawyer is to make sure that your side wins, regardless of the merits of their position. Sound familiar?

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

Theres two ways I can disagree to the original post.

One as many have pointed out is that monarchs can be ceremonial in which case they have not the authority to be a true dictator.

Nearly all are only about five are absolute

The second one is a more semantic level. Monarchs have been known to dress in a wide variety of attire, not just the old velvet cloaks but many would dress in military uniforms that were, not of velvet or purple. A monarch is much more then a dictator as they have a fancier title, a long and documented heraldry and their right of claim is often vouched for by some deity.

So true

I see you added in "Nearly all are only about five are absolute", good point, but the fact that non-absolute monarchies do exist defeats the generalization used as a topic title.

Right,I shall list the absolute monarchies :Brunei · Saudi Arabia · Swaziland · Vatican City

The thing is, there are titles for monarchies that many consider segregated from absolute only in name. As in they claim to be something else yet run as an absolute monarchy. You also forgot Qatar.

Ah I forgot the Emirate of Quatar

Also Swaziland and Oman.

said swaziland and leave me alone Im not perfect

[Maurepas]

I can tell you, from experience, that a Republic is just as bad, and brings in fewer tourist dollars...

Except for the whole 'I'm better than you due to birth' part of it.

Or, to quote Mark Twain:

The institution of royalty in any form is an insult to the human race.

...

A Prince picks up grandeur, power, and a permanent holiday and gratis support by a pure accident, the accident of birth, and he stands always before the grieved eye of poverty and obscurity a monumental representative of luck. And then -- supremest value of all -- his is the only high fortune on the earth which is secure. The commercial millionaire may become a beggar; the illustrious statesman can make a vital mistake and be dropped and forgotten; the illustrious general can lose a decisive battle and with it the consideration of men; but once a Prince always a Prince -- that is to say, an imitation god, and neither hard fortune nor an infamous character nor an addled brain nor the speech of an ass can undeify him. By common consent of all the nations and all the ages the most valuable thing in this world is the homage of men, whether deserved or undeserved. It follows without doubt or question, then, that the most desirable position possible is that of a Prince. And I think it also follows that the so-called usurpations with which history is littered are the most excusable misdemeanors which men have committed. To usurp a usurpation -- that is all it amounts to, isn't it?

meh, Twain's tl;dr,

But, seriously, Most Presidents come from the Upper Class so it really makes little difference...

Like Abraham Lincoln, right?

Most politicians seem to lawyers; just like Abraham Lincoln. I think that leads to a very limited and very particular view of problem solving, which is why we have this mess. Law is largely a zero-sum game in which one side loses and one side wins. Your job as a lawyer is to make sure that your side wins, regardless of the merits of their position. Sound familiar?

No, we remain blissfully unaware of any such loss,

[Redslavia]

Choosing rulers based on bloodline is the dumbest idea ever. Also, Constitutional Monarchies make me laugh, why should someone get special fame for coming from the queen?

[Fassitude]

That depends on the royal house. In the Hohenzollern dynasty, for example, the heir was trained in administration and general academics, while the next oldest went into the military.

And 1000 years ago, people believed drilling holes in the heads of crazy people released the demons that had possessed them. See, I can mention things done in the past done differently today, as well.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Choosing rulers based on bloodline is the dumbest idea ever. Also, Constitutional Monarchies make me laugh, why should someone get special fame for coming from the queen?

If monarchies shouldn't be relevent, why should your opinion be taken seriously? Or mine, or Maurepas', or Schwabenreich's, or Panonnia-Gluckberg's? Or anyone in history for that matter?

Just because you don't like something does not make it invalid, and understanding that is an integral part of growing into an adult from a child.

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

That depends on the royal house. In the Hohenzollern dynasty, for example, the heir was trained in administration and general academics, while the next oldest went into the military.

And 1000 years ago, people believed drilling holes in the heads of crazy people released the demons that had possessed them. See, I can mention things done in the past done differently today, as well.

Crzyness though not considered then is still crazyness

[Maurepas]

That depends on the royal house. In the Hohenzollern dynasty, for example, the heir was trained in administration and general academics, while the next oldest went into the military.

And 1000 years ago, people believed drilling holes in the heads of crazy people released the demons that had possessed them. See, I can mention things done in the past done differently today, as well.

Wait, you mean there are people who dont know of the healing powers needed to be rid of demons?

[Fassitude]

Crzyness though not considered then is still crazyness

Incoherence has always been incoherence, even when you are the source of it.

[Hydesland]

1.You can't oust them if you disagree with them.

Then limit their power.

2.They historically abuse the people.

So has everyone.

[Fassitude]

Wait, you mean there are people who dont know of the healing powers needed to be rid of demons?

They didn't have televangelists then. They had the Vatican. Which was a far more effective money-grubbing institution, and still is.

[Maurepas]

Wait, you mean there are people who dont know of the healing powers needed to be rid of demons?

They didn't have televangelists then. They had the Vatican. Which was a far more effective money-grubbing institution, and still is.

[Pannonia-Glucksberg]

Wait, you mean there are people who dont know of the healing powers needed to be rid of demons?

They didn't have televangelists then. They had the Vatican. Which was a far more effective money-grubbing institution, and still is.

I know what you mean in the essence I have a story too sad to tell