How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:19 amHitler wasn't a monarch. Most monarchs in history did more good than harm.Dan74 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:13 amThis seems to me to fall apart on a number of grounds.
Firstly, a cursory perusal of history will show any number of monarchs brutalising their subjects and leading their countries to ruin.
Secondly, even if some kammic merit leads to one being born a monarch, it does not follow that they will either do their job well, not that their people should hand them more powers or a carte blanche to do as they wish.
Argumentum ad hitlerium must read its ugly head here, since then it can be argued that everyone had the kamma to be exactly what they were, including our friend Adolf, your abusive ex-boyfriend and the psychopathic boss of Hate Inc. Does it give them any rights to do their evil?
Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all? Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.
Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.