What is the disadvantage to a monarchy?

Answer 1

If the monarch is chosen by birthright and they happen to be lousy, that affects the whole country in lousy ways. Also, you normally don't get to have a say in who becomes the next reigning monarch.

Answer 2

First of all, a constitutional monarchy has a hereditary monarch as head of state who is only a figurehead with no real power. Many people argue that it is a waste of time because the monarch is only there for appearances, not for action. It is expensive to support the monarch's customary lifestyle.

Others say that it's nice to be in touch with our historic roots, and that having someone who is always there, even if the political parties change, is a form of stability. Another pro of having a constitutional monarchy is that the politics don't get mixed up with the ceremonial duties.

Some people find having a constitutional monarchy isn't all that bad. We don't really pay attention to our head of state, so we don't have to really worry about him, and having a neutral figurehead is nice.

Of course, many other people who live under constitutional monarchies, where the head of state is unelected, deeply resent the situation. Exactly what percentage of the population feels this way is not known since constitutional monarchs are not democratically elected to head of state.

In addition, many would dispute the naive idea that a constitutional monarch makes for a truly neutral head of state. Constitutional monarchs from birth live a very luxurious and privileged lifestyle and so naturally tend to have a conservative political bias and often hold quite right wing views. Lest anyone forget, Fascism first rose to power under a constitutional monarchy. It was King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy who allowed Mussolini to become his prime minister and the world's first Fascist leader.

Two out of the three fascist states evolved out of constitutional monarchies. (Portugal, Germany and Spain were all republics before they became fascist). During the interwar years, Japan became another example of how wrong constitutional Monarchies can go. Supporters of the Japanese monarchy assassinated the liberal Prime Minster Inukai Tsuyoshi in 1932. Supporters of constitutional monarchies tend to be politically on the right. Monarchists in Spain actually established the fascist party.

The big problem is that the constitutional monarch always comes from one class background and normally from just one region of a country. For example, if you are a working class Scot, from say Glasgow, you might deeply resent the fact that for the last 200 years the British head of state has always come from, and been born in, London and has always spoken with an accent associated with privilege, the upper class and southern England.

Constitutional Monarchs or members of their immediate family frequently try to interfere in their country's politics. For example, Queen Victoria helped to bring down a Liberal Government, in the late 19th century, because she heard they planned to give India and Ireland greater independence.

Answer 3

Historically, monarchy has never been a reliable form of government because under a monarchy, people are obligated and compelled to obey the monarch even when his orders are destructive, cruel, or insane, as has often proved to be the case.and also the clevland indians rock!!!!!!!

Answer 4

One disadvantage to a monarchy is that with one person ruling they have all the power and if they decide to make a cruel or unfair low then nobody can do anything about it, or if they decide to kill a certain group of people (like Hitler in WWII) nobody can say or do anything but follow that law.

Answer 5

To know the advantages or disadvantages of monarchy, we have to know what is Monarchy.

Once on Earth a Giant had tramped. He had given us Adam. The sons of Adam had been the Monarchs of Sumeria, Babylon and Egypt.

The book Genesis is twisted. You see, the original text has only phrases. So when Adam was created, the men were already there, on Earth, and they were not cultivating the soil. By adding to the text subdivisions as: the second account of the creation, the meaning of the text is twisted.

By the books of Genesis and Enoch, the priests had started to eliminate the race of the gods, our former Merovingians. Our planetary system, once, had up to four planets and our Moon with life. Earth is the youngest. I suppose that for each planet, as their mitochondrial DNA has to fail, the males have to find females of younger race for transmitting their genetics. Doing so on Earth, they tried to implant the myth of the gods. They have been wiped out, but they returned as kings to be displaced by ... . So a Monarch is someone being not of the same race as the ruled population, us. Probably someone with the genetics of five planets. To who do we own England, France, etcetera, unless I am mistaken, it is a young boy, merovingian, who first started it, the royalty in Europe.

With Dan Brown, some will say that the youth would be a descendant of Jesus. He was a Monarch, hence he was a red head with their typical extra hair on their back. Is it surprising, a Monarch has red hair. Would it be surprising to know that Jesus and the Apostles were almost all giants with red hair. Curious normal Jews, would you say?

What advantages there are to have an Extraterrestrial has leader? I supposed it depends on the Constitution which define the modality of interaction of the kings. The Kings, as the pharaohs, had been eliminated, and their substitutes try to grasp the power with a curious manner. So the Constitution is not the only factor to be considered.

There is whose family is the king, and the manner of selection of a King. Do you know that the tradition of selecting a pharaoh-king had been transmuted to the first born theory. The story in Genesis which begin with a soup for a birthright, we suppose the old man was an ordinary man, and the servitors were certainly not honor guards. The old man was Pharaoh and was waiting for the youngest of the sons who had to put a disguise to come near his father. Following that last meeting the youth take his leave and has been back years later. When the two brothers did meet, as there is a missing phrase or two or three, what they said about royalty between the two of them.

So there had been a change in the tradition of selecting the next pharaoh-king. Let's suppose our Queen do choose among all the cousins of royal blood the chosen. It is something like that that was believed. Someone in the family is to be born very special, that is why he is to be chosen, to be the Pharaoh. Instead of that we have the first-born theory. Always a youth under the care of priests! I don't think a living Pharaoh would choose an incompetent, but with first-born theory, often incompetents had been able to have the lead.

But why would we talk about Monarchs and their advantages-disadvantages when the authentic product is missing.

Answer 6

Generally speaking, a monarchy is a government where all power is held by a royal family, normally headed by a queen or a king. Power is passed down when a ruling monarch dies or can no longer serve. The disadvantages are many. No voting on issues by the people, no particular set of rights for the people and many other problems that a democratic government can solve with the support of a voting citizens.

Answer 7

One disadvantage of a monarchy is that power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual or family, which can lead to inequalities and abuses of power. Monarchies can also limit political participation and representation for citizens, as the ruling monarch holds ultimate authority.

Answer 8

There are virtually no disadvantages to a constitutional monarchy.

Answer 9

everyone gets pooped on by the king and queen of the state and they take a large duece in everyones mouth including the people that ask this question