By Adam J. Pearson
Brett Graham Fawcett suggested that “the psychology of monarchism is so alien to most moderns that the sheer inability to empathize with monarchists is a greater factor in people rejecting monarchism than the arguments one way or another.” He may have a point, but I believe that it is probably the strong valuation of democratic freedom that leads people today to reject monarchism as traditionally conceived.
In modern democracies, people want a sense that they have some say in the election of their leaders, a sense that would be taken away from them under a hereditary monarchic system.
If the system of monarchism is non-hereditary, the question that these staunch supporters of democracy would then ask is “how then are leaders elected? do we, the people, have a say in this election/selection? If not, then I’m not interested in this political system. If so, then why call them “kings?”