its hard to find a good monarch


as for the british,most people might not know that she sucks

do some research on anglo-american empire,rothschild,throne of david and you will find out

I'm not really sure what kind of angle you are trying to take with this. I really don't think you can attribute in full, or even a decent part, of a country's economical outcome over a period of time to its form of governement, especially if you are only accounting for its current standing. History has provided monarchical governments plenty of wealth and "superpower" status throughout history. I'm not sure what you mean by "why does it need a monarch or the rejection of one". A governmental change is most likely the cause of an economic change, not the specific government entirely. Rejection of a monarchy doesn't guarantee economic growth and neither does the injection of a monarchy in a depressed economy.

Maybe you are looking at this in the wrong way and creating conclusions based of your perception? You might find more enlightenment by studying individual governmental structures and their histories rather than trying to create a puzzle by fitting together pieces from various puzzles. Monarchies can be very efficient forms of government since the power is centralized, the problem lies in who runs it and the fact that power is switched over every so often because people die. Even the greatest ruler in the world could have a selfish cruel offspring. This applying only to inherited forms of monarchy. So monarchies tend to fluctuate. Republics (like Rome and the modern "Democratic" countries) tend to have a more stable development cycle which can provide a greater benefit and thus allow a country to last much longer than a monarchy, but even they aren't invincible and can still be taken down if the right circumstances occur. Even Rome understood the benefits of the monarchy structure and thus provided the ability for a Caesar to have full power, though they might have failed to place proper safe guards in.

I'm not sure if economy is the greatest factor in determining the benefits of a governmental structure. I think you are applying much too strong of a weight to that, especially if you don't consider countries that aren't "superpowers" or in the top tier of wealth, successful countries. I'd say "superpowers" are more like the freaks of economical strength, and they don't stay that way. It's kind of similar to how some people think that games that sold less than Call of Duty are failures, but its obvious that's not the case.

Well then, nothing always works perfectly.

This is a poorly-veiled run of praise at Great Britain and societies that have marked off the British system, and what is critical to understand here is that keeping the monarchy is not the root cause here.

It really dates back to the Magna Carta, which freed Britain from the possibility of tyrannical monarchy and meant that British tradition, as opposed to traditional systems in other countries, were focused on keeping the balance between monarchy and nobility. This meant that the British system could better adapt to change over the years, and so radical revolution was rarely needed (though we do forget the Civil War here, don't we?), meaning that the British were able to adapt to modern systems without the system having to radicalize one way or another (towards reactionary Absolute Monarchy or into populism). This meant that Britain remained relatively stable through the upheavals of the industrial revolution in a way that almost no other country was able to do.

Though once again, we must remember that steps were taken in Britain to guarantee that the monarchy remained amicable to the will of the constituencies, as after the English Civil War or the Glorious Revolution

Chartism and the social contract are the key to British success, and the endurance of the monarchy is merely an extension of that.

Wow, so much to say here.

1) Australia is a Monarchy.
2) France gave up its Monarchy long before the USA did.
3) The USA is far from the richest country per capita (i.e. the metric you used to compare Aus/Canada to the UK). There are 7 countries ahead of the USA including several monarchies - Qatar, Luxemburg, Norway, Brunei. That's right, 4 of the top 6 richest countries in the world are Monarchies.
4) The UK does not have 10 million higher pop than Aus+can, much closer to 5 million.

It wasn't just a tea tax Americans were upset about. It was a variety of taxes. I think the one that pissed off people the most was the Stamp tax. I think in the end, it was the whole "taxation without representation" thing that killed off America's attachement to Britain. The connection between the Empire and the colonies was no longer there and Americans did not feel bound to the King. This is why it wasn't okay for Britain to tax the Colonies, yet over 200 years later, states like Maryland can tax us to death and we're not rebelling against it (unless you count the people moving to neighboring Delaware).

"GDP per capita" is not equal to income. Luxembourg's total, for instance, is vastly inflated for being a banking center for surrounding countries (so someone from Germany can nose into Luxembourg, conduct a financial transaction worth X, and leave, adding X to Luxembourg's GDP despite that person not being Luxembourgish)

Also 1776 is before 1789, the date of the first French Revolution.

^ You're right about 2, whoops. Thought it was early 1800s for some reason.

It's only a good thing if the monarchy doesn't get in the way of democracy - in my opinion, the UK isn't a monarchy, but those African countries are, and it doesn't work well