Why Do Monarchies Have A Suitable Place In The World

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of

Hobbes, you are adamant in the claim that an absolute monarchy is the best type of government. However, it is clear that too much power in the hands of one individual will lead to corruption. You believe that people are prone to corruption and wrong deeds. With power solely rested

The U.S. would never workout if it was a monarchy mostly because we are the country that we come for freedom that citizens want more than what people want for them. Our mother country, Great Britain, is doing fine right now, but being in a monarchy such as them it would not change at all considering your making the same decisions as your ancestors. Which the country would like a change and other people might have better ideas on how to run the country better. More ideas and more money ideas because in reality the world runs around with money. The Declaration of Independence saved us from becoming a monarchy and having the same traditional things and fights for the same thing. Not all bad come from monarchies though. There come good in

To stabilize the security, historical contexts are always involved to define a large and small society, where the majority are probably gonna use their powers in the small one. However the power must be independent of the majority, otherwise it cannot protect and contain the majority. This way to solve the problem that probably will not work prevailed in all the governments with hereditary and self-appointed representatives. Ruling by these “methods” where with a single blow everything can finish it up in more problems, makes Madison avoid at any cost the term “tyrant”. In any case, the idea is that especially in republics where freedom interested the majority, citizens maybe can wish to call for the monarchy because of stability and security that a strong man can bring to the

I believe that if we work on Thomas Paine's ideals, countries today can fix problems in their nation. Nations could uncorrupt their governments and learn to make their countries a better place to live in. Like it says in Common Sense, a country that is run with a monarch will not last as long as a country run by a democracy because the people in the end will have to ultimate say of what goes on in their country.

One reason why a monarch’s authority to govern should be absolute is because the interest of the state must come first. This means that the nation as a whole is more important than the individual opinions and thoughts of the citizens. In document number three it says, “The more you grant [to the assembled people], the more it claims… The interest of the state must come first.” This quote means that people are greedy and will take what they are given. If you award them too much freedom, they will take advantage of it. This would compromise the success of the country. Allowing the citizens to do and take whatever they want will leave less for the nation. (Document #3)

I argue for Great Britain to still continue being a Constitutional monarchy. Why you may ask, Well I argue for them because it makes Great Britain running smoothly. If they change it may cause money problems and more. On page 29, it says "According to the rule of male primogeniture, a female could take the throne if there were no direct male heir to fill the seat. In 2013, with the queen's support, a new law was passed to end that rule. As a result, Great Britain may have even more queen in the future." That means Queen Elizabeth II believes that there are going to be queens in the future and I'm sure that nobody doesn't want to not be queen or king of England.

The Case Against Monarchy The idea that a monarchy is the ideal form of government is a fallacy. Al-Farabi and Aquinas’ ideas about government are wrong, and are filled with irreparable holes. In modern times, the idea of a monarchy has become counter-intuitive and counter-productive. A democratic republic paired with an

Thousands of years ago, with the expansion of monarchies came the spread of numerous ideas specifically, religion. The culture and daily lives of those living within an empire was based on their faith. At its core, religion was a way to teach people how they should implement their lives, and it was a key part of unifying such large empires. The spread of a religion created countless impacts, with lasting effects on monarchies, that are demonstrated in modern society today. Some of these influences were negative, however they all caused impacts on all aspects of the areas they expanded in. The expansion of Buddhism in Japan and the spread of Christianity in the Americas, demonstrates how the spread of religion results in civic, governmental, and financial repercussions. Between 600 CE and 1700 CE, these monarchs were having impactful changes due to the expansion of a religion. Positive and negative social, political, and economic impacts were created as a result of the expansion of

Monarchs sat on top of all other Social Classes, monarchs had absolute power over the land and made all of the political and economic decisions. Nobility had the most power after the monarchs. Dukes were the rulers of a province. A baron was noble to the king and people on his land. Knights typically served as a holder of land. Freemen were poor farmers who owned small pieces of land. Serfs were the lowest of social classes and had no political power nor could they own any property.

www.monarch-butterfly.com/. And www.defenders.org/monarch-butterfly/basic-facts. II. Problem Summarize the problem-the main problem with monarchs is that they are decreasing in population very

would rule jointly. Religious Views - James had a controversial religious policy; his attempt to grant freedom of religion to non-Anglicans by suspending acts of Parliament by royal decree was not well received. Mary considered such action illegal, and her chaplain expressed this view in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, on her behalf.

The people are not allowed to meddle with creating and fixing laws. The life of a monarchy government is an expensive life. Thus requires the king to tax his people. When the monarch is oppressive this is when the people have no voice. Any demonstration or outcry by the people will get shut down quickly. They can stay in power for decades only death can stop a monarch. If the monarch is a tyrant like leader the people must endure these hardships for as long as that monarch is alive. Monarchs successors can sometimes be not the brightest individuals. They might not possess the actual knowledge to functionally run a country. Not one person can run a country. The old style of monarchies and governments did not produce order. Most of what they produced were wars and taxes on the people. Depending on the monarch they may be lenient or they might be controlling in the rights and laws for the people. This infringes on the natural rights and laws people are granted with. A monarch could take away the laws and rights that we are born with a simple word uttered by him. Rights and laws given by nature to all humans could be taken away in a split second by this monarch.

Throughout Common Sense, Thomas Paine shows that he is against Monarchical government, and he says that the government type itself is not a reasonable means of ruling a nation. To support this, he sheds light on several reasons in which a monarchy is a bad choice for government. Paine says that all the power is unbalanced and vested in the hands of a single person, which most of the time leads to the King of the nation using the powers he has, against his people, for the benefit of himself, and those around him. Paine also says that to have hereditary succession of a monarch is complete nonsense. Paine uses his reason to support this case by showing that maybe a nation is lucky and has a well fit ruler as a King, but who is to say the King’s successor will be best fit for the position of King or Queen of a country. The notion that one ruler is fair and just, does NOT guarantee that the successor will be as just or as fair.