>Give a guy that is neither smarter, stronger, more beautiful, more virtuous, or anything else, access to infinite wealth, power, women/breeding. And do it all because his family was one of the above traits he lacks 1000 years ago
Shout out to East Asian Emperors that were manlet nerds, the inbred Jew-enablers of Europe, or the Arab elite which don’t live by any of their supposed Islamic values.

because most of the world was never really centralized as you seems to believe it was
even in the most centralized state, there are still abundance of self governances
deposing the supposed bad monarch would introduce instability in and of itself, more often than not anyways
ultimately your version of a bad monarch doesn't even cause instability in the first place, what a retard lmao

Monarchism USED TO be act like like modern Democratic-Republics do today because they existed in a time before we had the technology to properly enforce a centralized government, leading to most monarchies featuring large swaths of otherwise lenient territory far from the Kingdoms capital cities where poors could escape and make a name for themselves or at least start a farm without much bother from the government. As technology got better and the world moved towards the industrial revolution, it brought with it the idea that industry could allow for monarchical governments to have a far tighter grip on their subjects, and Fascism was more or less this idea put to theory.

>>17799480 (OP)
Monarchs are frequently overthrown when they become incapable of ruling, which ensures that more capable bloodlines are kept in charge. Overall, the benefits of having a hereditary ruler outweigh the negatives.

because when everyone agrees to respect the monarchy, people are bound by common ethical ties, even if the monarch is a retard. this produces social stability that we can't even imagine in the modern age.
the monarch's role was typically conceive in spiritual and religious terms. the monarch's human qualities can make a large difference, but what's important is not his abilities, or even his personality (which indeed could be terrible and caustic to the state), but rather, the monarch's spiritual function.
this is why china often prospered even during the reign of bad or worthless emperors, but when china would fall, people attributed that to the emperor having "lost the mandate of heaven".
keep in mind also that there are many different forms of monarchy. the french monarchy of 1000 CE was quite different to the french monarchy after philip the fair, which was different to the monarchy of pre-revolutionary france, which was different from the monarchy of the bourbon restoration.

>>17799644
All we need is a bloody civil war that destroys our infrastructure whenever we want a new head of state? Sweet!

>>17799862
Yes, that is highly eugenic. Deal with it, bugman.

>>17799640
>where poors could escape and make a name for themselves or at least start a farm without much bother from the government
Except that some noble already owned that land.

>>17799878
He said start a farm not own the land. Most nobles would probably welcome land that is otherwise going unused turned into a farm where they could collect land taxes, not much bother from the government isn't the same as no bother at all

>>17799480 (OP)
Generally in a hereditary monarchy like that the monarch tends to become a figurehead and the state is mostly held up by its bureaucracy.
It is also stable because it has definitive rules of what constitutes legitimacy.

>>17799862
Civil wars are more of a modern thing. In monarchies there are usually coups or at worst elite power struggles that involve the troops of several nobles, not an all out war.

>>17799480 (OP)
Do you know about Charles II, the last Hapsburg monarch of Spain? Due to extensive inbreeding he was born with a number of severe birth defects including developmental delay and impotency. Today he would be considered borderline mentally retarded, yet despite this he was made king and given (at least on paper) absolute power, and a beautiful wife. Presumably because of his birth defects he was never able to father any children and he died at 35.

Without any family the question of who would succeed him had long been troubling to the nations of europe, and on his deathbed Charles declared that his grandnephew Philip V Duke of Anjou, should inherit the throne. The problem was that the duke was the grandson of Louis XIV and this meant that Spain and France would from then on be natural allies, and worse he could potentially become king of both Spain (which held a great deal of european territory outside of iberia) AND France. The prospect of this superstate was a truly terrifying one to the English, Austrians, Dutch, and most of the HRE. So on Charles' death they refused to recognize Phillip and shortly afterwards declared war in the hopes of partitioning Spain's empire and removing him from the throne.

This was the start of the "war of spanish succession" which raged for 12 years and claimed over half a million lives. It was also the beginning of the end for the Spanish Empire.

And to think, there are people who still think that Monarchy is a good form of government after one placed a literal impotent retard on the throne, whose death triggered a massive and ruinous war.

>>17800163
>Do you know about Charles II, the last Hapsburg monarch of Spain? Due to extensive inbreeding he was born with a number of severe birth defects including developmental delay and impotency.
There is no evidence that his birth defects were related to inbreeding; his prognathism was almost certainly not a recessive trait, for example. Plenty of children born to non-consanguineous parents are born with severe birth defects, and the majority of children born to consanguineous parents do not have any noticeable defects. Before modern medical advances, the majority of children born with significant defects died in childhood, which negated the majority of downsides associated with inbreeding.

>Presumably because of his birth defects he was never able to father any children and he died at 35.
Wow, so it was a self solving problem, and the only reason it eventually went south was because the request of the King was ignored.

>>17799480 (OP)
It depends on whether you trust one family to act as shepherds of the flock of the nation, acting benevolently in the knowledge that they can maintain their position of wealth and privilege simply by not taking advantage.

Some might say that elevating another to such a position by dint of birth alone is dehumanising to the mass of the people; others might say that electing heads of state, every 4 to 8 years, requires an unrealistic amount of trust in the good intentions of the average person, rather than expecting people whose tenures are brief and unstable not to take advantage of bribes, perks, etc that still wouldn't be offered to the masses

>>17799480 (OP)
As opposed to electing some equally unnotable idiot? Atleast in a monarchy you can guess whos coming up next.

>>17800191
>Atleast in a monarchy you can guess whos coming up next.
Unlike democracies where the running candidates go on campaign for months?

>>17800175
>there is no evidence that his birth defects were related to inbreeding
muslim detected

>>17800191
just as important as choosing your leaders is being able to peacefully transition to someone else

>>17800176
monarchies are far more corrupt and incompetent than democracies. A dictatorship has to be corrupt, it's by design.

>>17800235
In democracies it's usually a coin flip. Only the deep state has any idea who's next

>>17800252
What is the deep state and how does it know the outcome of elections beforehand?

>>17800256
Whatever your elites are in your local nation. They have greater degrees of influence and greater abilities to collect data, making them more likely to make correct judgements on election odds than a commoner who has no influence and no access to Intel.

Or, in some states, the deepstate just installs people because they're corrupt.

>>17799480 (OP)
You're right about everything you said there but it's still stable because a ruler leading your country for his entire adult lifetime means policies will not really change as drastically so mostly everything is well defined. The state no longer suffers from DID but only just whatever mental illnesses the guy in charge has.