Louis XIV, I would say, was mixed rather than thoroughly bad. Certainly he was selfish & conceited and waged unnecessary wars. But he also was a great patron of the arts and did a lot for French culture and prestige. As a musician, this area is important to me. And would France be as popular a tourist destination today without Versailles?
I am against getting rid of monarchy where it currently exists, except for the most extreme reasons, and I do think that monarchs ought to be more than figureheads.
I'm glad to hear it! I will admit that I can come across as a bit zealous and fanatical regarding monarchy since it resonates so deeply with me in ways that are sometimes difficult to explain. But I can also applaud reasoned and sensible sentiments such as yours.
nor do I think...that countries with long histories of republican government...can, or should move to monarchy.
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree! But the only European countries to which this really applies are Switzerland, San Marino, and Iceland. The others, especially those for which there are still legitimate claimants to the thrones, ought to be monarchies.
Dear royalcello,
"But if the bad monarchs of history constitute an argument against monarchy, than the bad democratically elected leaders of history constitute an argument against democracy."
But democracy has a few small advantages. First, it is hard to depose a monarch for merely being moderately bad. He's gotta be a real horror to get rid of him. But in a democracy, change is the name of the game. We only have presidents for eight years. Even FDR was president for only about 13 years. It's tough to stay near or at the top of the political heap for an extended period of time.
Second, well-built constitutional republics enshrine gridlock. The American system certainly did. Thus, it's hard to make change quickly (or at least, once was). Thus, as a result, folks have to "live with" the idea of the change for a long time before it happens. And a lot of bad ideas get tossed as a result.
Third, every form of government sucks to some significant degree, but a blessing of an elected government (especially one that has a strong two-party dominance, like the US) is that it is nearly self-legitimating. You don't like the prez? Vote him out! He got elected again? Well, heck, he got the most votes! So, he da' man! This tends to make most folks accept the legitimacy of the government.
It is the argument that says, "You have no one to blame but yourselves for the nincompoops and incompetents you've elected. So shut up, stop rioting, and get back to the grindstones."
My reaons for not getting rid of monarchy where it exists is not because I think it is preferable to constitutional republics. I am against getting rid of monarchy where it exists because it is to make a drastic change to a society that will have many unforeseen, and possibly evil consequences. Monarchies are not so awful, in concept, that it is worth the societally destabilizing effects of getting rid of them. There can be exceptions, but it's a good general rule, I think.
On the other hand, I think a lot of the European nations are too far-gone from monarchy to get it back. A returning monarchy, after nearly a century, or even more, without one, could also be de-stabilizing.
However, I will make an exception in the case of France. France needs all the de-stabilizing it can get.
I think, also, that Italy could be well-served by a return of the House of Savoy. But then, I read of Prince Vito, and I wonder whether he'd really make such a great king.
For much of the world, the problem is that there are whole parts of the world, like North and South America, that have never really had indigenous monarchs. Oh, the Canadians look to QEII as their head of state, but the connection is, by now, a bit tenuous. There was a bit of monarchy in Latin America, but nothing that really arose from the Western Hemispheric experience, or that really stuck.
And then, there are parts of the world with nation-states that never were really governed by a single monarch. And then, I think we were talking about CATHOLIC monarchs, weren't we? I don't think that we need be worried about Catholic monarchs in India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan, etc.
sitetest