Historically not as bad as modern ideologues would have one believe, but a little sketchy in the modern world.

I attach a rather intelligent analysis of the concept of Monarchism and its alternatives taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

LAST UPDATE:  Since you have made a grand total of one posting, it is a shame that you keep wiping out your previous comments.  We shall miss all that erudition.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE:

Well then, sonny, don't go around attacking people if you don't have the intellectual firepower to do so. Reading one paragraph on a subject does NOT make you an expert as you may find when you turn fourteen.

Well there sonny, I never claimed to be an expert. I was just pointing out to you, the respectable historian; a flaw in your writing. Trust me, I know alot more about soviet-era Russia than you might think. And I pointed out your mistake there old man, I was right. I clearly have the intellectual firepower.

ah, yes. . .the king or queen is the ruler usually (but not always) with some form of religious consent. . .Two stars only for its simplicity- we all know who's in charge. . .but it's an antiquated and outdated model- despite dubya's masturbatory desires to live like a monarch, it isn't coming back. . .

Nearly the worst form of government, though an improvement on anarchy and not quite as bad as the short-lived experiments of Fascism and Communism and the current experiments in Islamic Theocracy. Nearly extinct (except in the neutered form of 'constitutional monarchy') except in Nepal (Maoist rebellion) Dubai (whose monarch is the richest man on earth, thanks to oil) Kuwait, the UAE (see Dubai), Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (where the alternative is civil war and/or fundamentalist theocracy).

The principle of monarchy in the modern world has nothing to do with divine right, it's about having an apolitical head of state who is able to represent the entire country and - most importantly - has been trained for his/her duty since birth, ensuring that they impart far more dignity and stability than any president ever could. Anyone doubting the value of monarchies to the world would do well to compare the success of the countries that have retained them as opposed to the countries that have abandoned them. With the exception of the USA and possibly EIRE, every single republic has been a notorious failure: Germany was a hugely successful empire until the fall of the monarchy, when recession and continued political failure led to the rise of national socialism. When the Russian empire fell look at what happened to their 'democratic republic' - and the half of Europe which suffered with them for half a century. Even since the fall of communism the Russian state has been a bit of a bad joke. France? The tyrannies of the Revolution were unequalled until the success of republicanism in Germany and Russia. Furthermore, their country has lost every major war disastrously since. Spain - highly successful under the monarchy, it descended into a terrible civil war without it. Italy has had an almost endless series of political crisis since the start of the present republic, and the same is true of Greece. Campuchea/Cambodia - all of its troubles started with the fall of the monarchy, and have ended since its reinstitution. Iran was a hugely successful beacon of tolerance until the revolution toppled the late Shah, leading to a destruction of its economy that it is only just starting to recover from, and the endless religious oppression and extremism that was the whole point of the Republic. China fell apart and lost up to 100 million lives following the fall of its monarchy and the inevitable civil war that follows republicanism. Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria - well I could go on, but anyone can see for themselves - republicanism = almost inevitable disaster and tyranny. Now for some of the countries that have wisely retained their monarchies - these include almost all of the worlds most succesful countries: UK (since reinstitution-the English revolution led to such a political disaster the monarchy was reinstated within 11 years!), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Spain (since reinstitution), Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Thailand, Japan, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Monaco. If you really want to live somewhere where they don't have any monarchy go to Africa, where almost the entire continent is composed of republics, and has contained the most unstable, tyrannical, poverty and war sticken countries in the world. The two monarchies that it does have are Lesotho and Swaziland. As they've hardly had any major problems few have heard of them! The writers complaining that Monarchy is regarded as a better ideology than Communism and Fascism are overlooking the obvious: Monarchy has mostly been good for its countries and the world, whilst Communism and Fascism have destroyed them.

Awful, Monarchs should be stood up and shot on general principle.

pretty stupid, works better than anarchy though

How is Monarchism rated higher than Marxism, Socialism and Communism? I think that's absolutely sickening to know that's how our uninformed country feels.

The best form of government for lots of thinkers in history and which proved useful until a bunch of jealous losers thought wise to get rid of it, like in France; the technocratic form of government that everyone seems to advance is that of the friends' friends who can get a job thanks to their connections with the rulers who themselves got their job thanks to their connections (often related to free masonry), elections have almost nothing to do with it. And after that, you think that monarchy is absolutist and undemocratic ? Hey, guess what ? In France, the King before he was toppled wanted to make reforms but he was prevented from doing so by those who were going to vote his death, the revolutionary who turned out to be much more merciless, stupid, undemocratic than any King in French history. The 1789 revolutionary removed the right to vote for the women and most of men (the poorest ones of course) for example, right that they had under the Kings. The propaganda around freedom brought by the revolution is just crap aimed at legitimizing the republic. republicanism has been a tradition in France since a little bit more than a century; compared with the more than 1000 years under the Kings who REALLY made France. Most presidents or prime ministers in the modern world are corrupted.

Some members of society treasure monarchies, admire them. I am not one of these people. I live in a country still under the rule of a monarchy, it doesn't please me much. Royals are concerted freeloaders. But apart from the money they absorb, they are relatively harmless nowadays (in westernised societies anyway). However there is something wrong with a system that promotes leaders simply for being born.

Why are monarchs superior beings to every1 else. They have no point to exist!

Naziism By Proxy, FANATICALLY ANTI REPUBLIC!

Mob rule might be good for capitalists and those with no moral grounding or belief in anything greater than themselves. Republican forms of government are based upon selfish behavior and a complete disregard for anyone but oneself. Monarchism, on the other hand, has been a uniting force for the nations for which it has served, providing a common cause for which every person in that nation can strive. This has only been true in democracies when an extremely powerful or popular leader is in charge; and this often leads to fascism, which, despite the comments of some others here, has nothing whatever to recommend it.

Monarchism is really no different from reperesentative government: favouritism and nepotism rule.

Regardless of theoratical arguments for and against monarchism and other ideologies, monarchism has proved itself to be the most robust, effective and adaptable system of government yet devised - it's merit speaks for itself.

The Monarchy in Britain actually costs each person 2p a year (about 4cents)-Many people in countries who have no monarchies purport to being anti-Monarchist yet these are the ones that spend the most dollars coming to see them when the show is in town. Admittedly it's an anachronism but it works well as a system in that the Queen is a figurehead and supposedly can dissolve Government if it gets too big for its boots. It gives the impression of stability and continuance, above the actions of the Government of the day. Not that that has happened in a long while. I think she's more representative of the Commonwealth and sooner rather than later, as the EU becomes ever more integrated, Monarchy will be dissolved in all countries that have it.

It is 2004, folks. How anyone can cling to the idea that someone deserves an elevated status based solely on who is ancestors were is completely beyond my understanding.

It can be good....depending on the monarchy of course. Better than a communist goverment

Monarchism is essentially a democracy with a life-long figurehead family at the post which believes in 'divine right'. One monarch may also take a hold on more than one country (yes, more). The royal family cost taxpayers of both Australia and England a mouthful, tax which could be spent on more worthwhile things such as public healthcare or the economy. Any monarchy has young teenage kids that may make public headlines by doing something illegal just because they're 'royals', which is a huge embarrassment for any country under a monarch. It's saddens me that Australia would prefer a monarch to a republic. To me, the idea of monarchism is to gain fame by doing nothing. John Howard supports this form of government, which is cause for concern, especially as he is the PM of Australia. Republicism is better because the people can elect their ruler and there'll be no money wasted on royal visits and holidays and this other royalist stupidity. The bottom line: it's way past it and it's good for nothing more than tourism.

Historically, monarchy has been a vile abberation based upon 'divine right', something which Elizabeth II of England has admitted to believing in. The history of European monarchs has largely been one of inbreeding, sadistic cruelty, insufferable greed, sexual perversion and egomania. Even worse than monarchies themselves are the inner circles of conniving advisors, courtiers etc who've used their royal connections for their own devious ends, and the great mass of idiotic sycophants who willingly swallow royalist propaganda hook line and sinker. That Britain still largely supports a high profile monarchy is a sad indictment of a country fast falling behind its European neighbours in nearly all areas. At least the Scandinavian and Dutch monarchies have low profiles and have dome away with the expensive and ridiculous pageantry exhibited in the UK in 2002.

It sickens me that Monarchism is still a surviving ideology in this modern world. It sickens me even more that Monarchism is ranked higher on this site than Fascism (which at least had some redeeming values). Monarchist countries waste fortunes on keeping a few random, unworthy people surrounded by wealth and luxury. This wasted money could otherwise be spent on important things, like public health or education. Secondly, Monarchism advocates the most idiotic method of selecting national leaders imaginable. Any system that doesn't demand its leaders to have earned their power through their personal merits and the support of their people is just ridiculous and a waste of all our time. This ideology is flawed to the core, and allows for too many potentially disastrous scenarios. Monarchism [arguably] worked back in the days of Feudalism (an equally moronic concept), but is a pathetic idea in today's world.

Any idiot who thinks that this system is a good form of government is surely insane. This system has as good a chance of working as would a system where someone went downtown and randomly selected any old person. Sure there have been good monarchs in the past but this is by chance - not by any merits inherent in the system. I find it hard to believe that there are still some sixteen odd Kingdoms and other monarchies around today. A system in which you actually attempt to find a good leader (whether by voting for them or by them simply advancing to the top by their own skill) is superior beyond imagining.

Depends on the leader entirely but of course in this system there is no scope to prevent corruption. Of course then you get into the Magana Carta and such but this is really ancient history

It's really sad that people are still stupid enough to support this.It's just a primitive form of Fascism,where people are forced to follow a leader that they didn't vote for,but it's worse because sometimes even the leader doesn't want to lead the country.None of you that gave this a five are patriots,did you know Sadaam Husseins gov. is a form of Monarchism?

I can see how this would be ok hundreds of years ago, but for any modern society it's absolutely ridiculous to even imagine.

Even though there are quite a few monarchies left in western europe - Britain, Spain, Norway etc, they dont actually hold much power at all. These countries are all democracies. The Monarcy really are little more then tourist attractions, they just sit there and look pretty, only get in the papers when the youngest prince or princess gets caught snorting coke off some hooker.

Long past its time. Monarchism is not "the ruling of intelligible people". In a monarchy, power is gained simply by family name, rather than by hard work and dedication. A boy born into the royal family may be as dumb as a box of rocks, but because his last name is such and such, he is the King.

The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understands it and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other.

Depends on the King. Think Saint Louis of France, Saint King Edward of England and Saint Elizabeth of Hungry.

No. Just plain no.

I'm British, and I don't really see the point in having a Royal Family that are still so prominent. And yes, I don't like the fact that our nation pays for them. They don't really serve any real purpose, all they do is provide the media something to write about and to convince us how great Britain is.

No disrespect - especially to the British monarchy and most especially to young Wills, Harry, the Queen Mum, and the corgis - but this really seems like ancient history here. Monarchism is a way of life and governance that has gone on long past its usefulness – even if they are just figureheads in most cases. The idea that people are fit to lead and deserve tax money and respect merely because they were born into a certain family is just narrow-minded and kind of silly. The fact that there are still monarchs in the world seems as weird to me as parts of the Middle East that still can't get over the Crusades. Let's evolve a little, shall we?

It's many reasons why one European country after the other have left monarchism behind & become republics in the 20th century. Hundred years ago almost all European nations were monarchies, today there's just a few left, many of them quite unpopular, especially the British. The supporters of monarchism say it's unifying the nation, something a president can never dream of doing. True enough, but who said we do need a strong president with lots of political powers? I don't even see the need of a president. I want the prime minister to be the head of state, but then again it's important to let him be elected like the parliamentarians! In Norway we have an excellent royal family, some of the most sympatic people I know about actually, especially the crown prince & his mother, the queen. However I don't think it's right to demand of them to do a job they haven't choosen & maybe even don't like. It's like forced mariages in the Middle-East. The parents will probaly say it's the only right, but that doesn't make them more right, does it?