[Niuhuru]

“A king is annointed to serve by God indeed. That’s bad?”

Kings are also human and have made huge mistakes that have cost many their lives. I don’t see how good kings automatically have perfect heirs; usually, they have failures for heirs.

[Cronos]

I don’t see how good kings automatically have perfect heirs; usually, they have failures for heirs.

Good point. Also, Alex, while there have been good kings in the past and yes, a monarchy served it's purpose at a point in time, I humbly submit that now there is no justification for an absolute monarch or even a feudal one. That time is passed

For a constitutional monarch, you can say that it works in the here and now, but where does it work? In countries that already had/have had monarchs or a monarchical tradition. It cannot be put on a country like the US now, it wouldn't be practical even if the majority wanted it.

Stability -- perhaps in the case of established monarchs it works, let's take 3 examples:

1. In long established monarchs ruling over a mono-ethnic state like in Japan or the Scandanavian nations it works as the latter are tiny, the monarchs are low-key and in the former they have been there for 2000+ years
2. In long established monarchies like Spain or the UK where they provide the figure head of unity (Personal unions leading to closer ties). In these they have been long-established and without them the various parts move apart
3. In new monarchies like Belgium or Bulgaria etc. -- they have no deep ties (Bulgaria) and their loss is not regretted. For Belgium, they serve as the sign of unity (the last king was good), but they do not serve as stability. The King had to resign when the parliament asked him to rubber-stamp an act approving abortion or divorce or something. He abdicated and them came back to power. Not a feasible solution

The US is more like Belgium (only with much, much more division) than anything else. There is no feasible choice for monarch and it is not a feasible option.

[annalex]

I don’t see how good kings automatically have perfect heirs; usually, they have failures for heirs.

Not necessarily. The Romanovs had excellent Tsars all along, even if you argue about Nicholas II. Charlemagne produced a very successful dynasty that lasted centuries. So were the Spanish kings and queens. Some dynasties produced failures, like Louis XIV and everyone remembers those.

Just because the politicians revolve better and are not related doesn't make them any less hit-or-miss affair.

All this being said, let us not lose sight of my central proposition: that the office of a king makes for a good ruler just thanks to the pressures of the office. The elected office makes for a bad ruler, again naturally. It is easier to be a good king than a good president.