Monarchism - Wikipedia

Monarchies have their strengths and weaknesses, and there are several types of them. What do you think of monarchism? 

I literally have to swear allegiance to King Charles soon 🤣
And I'm swearing allegiance to that same Monarchy for the second time. But it's not a redundant swearing, but different crowns on the same head. The Commonwealth countries each have different crowns, so really, it's allegiance to two different crowns).

My opinion is complex. But has more to do with the "in practice" than the "on paper" application of Monarchies vs Republics. And it has to do with our particular period in history. Go back to the 1700s, and I'd definitely prefer a republic to a monarchy.

My baseline opinion is more one of indifference. However, now I'm seeing that because of their status as a hereditary executives, it leaves the executive office effectively stuck in democratic societies, while in republics the executive office tends to take a far more active and damaging role in society. I think the reason is that the executives in democracy tend to legitimize themselves as a "people's dictator" where Monarchies are incapable of doing this. So, you could say I'm pro-Monarchy for the inactive rule they play in democracy which benefits democracy more than republics have proven to.

Pointless pieces of society that keep existing because of history legacy

They are fine if they provide more revenue than expenses like British Monarchy, otherwise just abolish them all

They're fine, mostly.

Wouldn't want, or need, my own country to become a republic, in whatever form.

It's actually unfair on the people expected to become king/queen. They may not really want (or be suitable) to be in Government.

Ultimately they have no legitimacy or power, so they're a bit of an acting role these days.

It's not a system that should exist anymore, but I get why people might want to cling to it still. Having a democratically elected leader is better in an ideal situation, but it's balancing act to get just the right amount of power and no more, no less.

I don't support monarchism per se. I also don't think it's a good idea to have the head of state and the head of government combined into a single individual, which the presidential republics that are predominant in the Americas and East Asia do. It ironically gives the presidents of those countries more power and less accountability than almost any modern monarch, as we've seen with Trump, Yoon Suk Yeol, as well as Rodrigo Duterte and Bongbong Marcos. There are other issues inherent in presidential republics, like the rigid election schedules (no matter the circumstances, an American presidential election cannot be held outside of the first Tuesday of every fourth November), and the fact that the executive power is completely separated from the legislative body. If the chief executive were seen as a less indispensable and a more disposable position, the citizens of presidential republics might be less likely to be at each other's throats in every election season. 

It may well be that swearing allegiance to a constitutional figurehead with mainly ceremonial powers is better than swearing allegiance to what is basically a piece of paper, especially when that piece of paper is only as good as the people who are interpreting or enforcing what is written on it. The King has a lot of written and unwritten rules about how he exercises the royal prerogative, and the actual governing is left to the Prime Minister and the Commons.

Also unfair on their relatives, especially the younger siblings of the heir apparent. Harry gets a lot of crap for not wanting to be a working royal. Meghan likewise gets a lot of crap for allegedly pressuring Harry out of the royal family. Once George was born, Harry had only slightly better odds of being the King than I do, which are mathematically insignificant. He's fourth in line behind his nephews and niece. Once George marries and has kids, not only are Harry and his issue pretty much a non-issue in the order of succession, but Archie and Lilibet are out as well.  What incentive does Harry have to take part in the royal family?

I think the British line of succession (and similar ones) are pretty stupid. Why do the children of a first-born child get preference over the second-born child and such. Why are William's kids heirs before Harry?

Zazu: As the king's brother, you should have been first in line.

Scar: Well, I was first in line, until the little hairball was born.

Mufasa: That hairball is my son and your future king.

The sad thing is they both got treated worse by the British Press AND their own family, more than the actual fucking nonce did. As long as the Royal Family has a nonce palling around in it still benefiting it can go fuck itself, Imho. But even without him, I'm in favour of abolishing the British Royal Family. Can't speak of other royal families.