Why do people love Monarchy and the Aristocracy?

[NAOTMAA Fan]

First of all, thanks to everyone who's posted here!! Every single persons thoughts and opinions have been great.

I noticed something of a slight dispute in the making here after AP's post. I just want to make clear that regardless of how quick and to the point your answer is, I still greatly appreciate your taking the time to bother with my question.

Back to the point now; People have been bringing up some very good points. mcdnab's post on the idea of Romantics was so very much appreciated and after reading it I have altered some aspects of my essay in general, not to mention the excellent ideas posed. aleksandr pavlovich, I must say I was enlightened by your proposal to write on the consequences upheaval had on the Upper Classes such as the loss of monarchs and family heirs, and is a point I should very much like to include in my written piece. And I thank you for your thoughtful effort to try clarify my first post, I understood what you had in mind! Constantinople, you may be rest assured that your initial post was taken with abundant appreciation and I very much liked your highlighting the fact of the religious and protocol aspects, which truly did give the higher echelons of society the influence to rule. I should also like to bring that up in my essay (Also I just want to clear it up that I'm male, where it seemed you thought contradictory to that; but trust me I'm in no way offended and thank you terribly for wishing me luck).

Laura, Grand Duchess Ally (Velkoknezna Maria!), Anna 11, Ferah, and Nena, I'd like to thank you very much for lending me your insight and it is entirely and unmitigatedly appreciated (I honestly thought no one would bother with my post at all!)

And also, don't feel obliged to post for just my sake, feel free to talk about the subject amongst yourselves here!

-Keegan

[aleksandr pavlovich]

Thank you, NAOTMAA Fan, for the feedback to us all regarding your essay topic.  I'm happy that your asking for suggestions/comments has proven beneficial in some measure to you, even if it's only a consideration of different/challenging views.  After all, you will be the sole arbiter of their relative value as you proceed to final composition.  Please give us feedback on your progress from time to time, and good luck!  Regards,  AP

[helenazar]

I think people like monarchies (not all people but many) because it's a romantic idea. Also, it gives people a sense of national identity, due to the unbroken (or nearly so) line of succession of monarchs.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

I think there are a couple of aspects.  One that they have a genetic link to people who control or controlled states.  The second element is that they contolled enormous wealth and managed to surround themselves with unparalleled luxury.  The fact that this was inherited and not earned added something to the enigma.

Indeed the hereditary part often seems to give monarchs (perhaps especially mediocre or bad ones like NII) some innocence sympathy, when they are contrasted with politicians, who often are politicians because they are good at talking, bargaining, seducing, networking, manipulating etc.

A good example of this can presently be seen in the world's leading monarchy: As contempt of politicians rises in the UK, the Queen gains in respect. When her son and heir occassionally speaks out against politically correct "modern architecture", some? many? applaud this privileged hereditary royal for speaking common sense and expressing "ordinary people's" views.

Yes, liberal leftwingers are right: Monarchy is not egalitarian. But nowhere, not even in Communist countries, is society totally egalitarian. Because we cannot escape our biological fates. All the things we are born with: parents, gender, looks, brains etc. have an enormous impact on our existence. (So do upbringing and also the biological choices we take during life: Mating, giving birth, parenting or not.) And just like Nicholas II, we have to cope as best we can with these given facts. Even in an age when people don't inherit their farm, trade or lot in life from their parent(s), monarchy still reflects our biological fate much better than a politician as president.

Anybody can become president, but only the kid of the kid of the kid of X the Great can become monarch, you say? Think about it: An average nobody (like Nicholas Romanov or Joe Bloggs) can become head of state in a monarchy by accident of birth, but is not likely to be voted head of state in a republic. Whether it's beneficial to have a Joe Bloggs as head of state is another discussion, but "the silent majority" do seem to find some satisfaction in it, at least only as a revenge upon "the chattering classes".

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

I think people like monarchies (not all people but many) because it's a romantic idea. Also, it gives people a sense of national identity, due to the unbroken (or nearly so) line of succession of monarchs.

There is some truth to this, but it's too simplistic.
What about the Swiss? They have a strong national identity, but no succession of monarchs. Indeed, can you name any Swiss leaders after the perhaps only mythical Wilhelm Tell?
What about Germans? Did the HRE zoo of competing petty monarchs give them a less strong national identity?

Can only a succession of hereditary monarchs achieve this? What about the long sucession of Popes, don't they give Catholics a strong sense of identity? What about US presidents? Isn't the list of presidents also a source of national identity?