| Pyro as Bill said: England, Scotland, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Hong Kong, Singapore and they're only the important ones ie wealth creators in the world. Why did America succeed while India, South America, France, China remained insignificant? Canada and Australia combined now make more money than the UK with 10M less population. The UK, Canada and Oz cripple the EU per person. The US, Singapore and Hong Kong are independent now but why is it that they and not others are the richest, most free, countries in the world? If freedom and democracy are so fantastic, why does it need a monarch or the rejection of monarchy, God's chosen one, to turn countries from shitholes to hyperpowers in less than 100-200 years? |
You are attributing current day Monarchies with the powers Monarchies had hundreds of years ago. Many many European countries have them, but Monarchies today do not have any real power in government - just ceremonial power. Essentially the Monarchies are the biggest land owners in their respective countries. The Queen of England is the largest land owner in the world, but in actuality, she has no real say in what happens with that land, if a government wants to take that land and drill for natural resources there, they will vote on it and do it.
If you mean Monarch's with actual powers, I don't agree. Dynastic rule is generally not stable enough, this has been known for over 2500 years; since the days of Solon, and we are repeatedly reminded of it throughout history. Sure some times we can have great Kings, but then their successors might be absolutely terrible. The Romans in multiple occasions saw the faults of dynastic rule, and it was ultimately the Imperial dynasties that brought the Empire down on multiple occasions.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
