Replies

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Britain, the UK and most of the former "colonies" would disagree... as in "God save the Queen (or King as the case may be).
There is nothing "passe" about a monarchy, as long as it has the features of a Constitutional, Democratic nation. (In such cases, the Monarchy acts more like OUR concept of a stable rebublic, than the 'vassals and surfs' of the dark ages.)

Pure democracies are socialist demons.
A monarchy is better than the "mob rule" of a pure democracy. Having said that, the arab version of "monarchy" needs to be "parliamentarized" somewhat to make it palatable to the West... and I suspect that is what the overall strategery of the middle east is all about.

Don't a lot of "demcratic" nations still have a sovereign?
They just don't have "totalitarian" power. The Queen can still dismiss parliament, and call new elections... but never does. She WOULD if there were an emergency. In such cases, the monarchy can be the "enforcer" and "failsafe" device for democratic and constitutional rule...

I don't think the age of monarchs is over.