Monarchy is good when it's about raising up an individual to be the best a nation has to offer, in a controlled environment where they learn about the nature of rule, justice, history, and philosophy. This dream has been around for a long time, but unfortunately it's doesn't always translate to reality. You get your Marcus Aurelius, and you get your Caligula. The devil is in the details, and sometimes the prince just doesn't stack up.
What most people think of when monarchy comes up is an inherently tyrannical system that naturally evolves from basic feudalism, where whoever was lucky enough to get the most resources early on in history gets to declare their blood as divine or whatever and glut themselves on the fruits of their people for centuries. Also, incest. This form of rule ravaged Europe for a thousand years. That era was defined by great national feats tempered by rampant injustice.
tl;dr according to my knowledge the nature of monarchy is untouchable highs balanced by abysmal lows. To dismiss such a system as primitive isn't entirely correct. However, I feel that in this era a system is needed that grants more freedom to the individual. Like a baby leaving the cradle, mankind should leave monarchy firmly in the past.>>3053>monarchy in action is similar to republic
Largely true, it's basically the same. Invest in a ruling class to be the wisest and most morally true. The big difference is in who gets chosen to be a part of this class. Modern monarchies are more of a figurehead deal to my knowledge anyway.