Monarchy. If it wasn't for Adolf Hitler's idea for a "Master Race", monarchy would be the stupidest form of government in the world. This being said, allow me to elaborate.
First of all, monarchy is a fundamentally flawed system in which undeserving people can achieve and retain great status and power just by being born. Granted, the same can be said about people born into well-off families, but there will come a point in those peoples' lives when they will have to work for their keep, thus weeding out the fit from the unfit. Monarchy, however, works differently. There have been hundreds of weak, mean, greedy, ineffectual, irresponsible people who have been born into power, and thus abuse it horribly. This, of course, screws up the lives of the peasants that they govern, making everybody generally miserable. And eventually, these weak monarchs, who are only where they are because they happened to be born of someone's family, will die with a lopped-off head (if they get what they deserve), or of some disease or something, but never without turning a lot of peoples' lives into a living hell first.
Granted, there have been some good monarchs. Some. People like Charlemagne, Brian Boru and Saladin, people who were strong leaders who ruled firmly and didn't take shit from invadors, those are the kind of monarchs I'm okay with. But their legacies didn't last. Upon Charlemagne's death, his kingdom was torn apart by his squabbling kids. Brian Boru died in battle, and Ireland was never again to have another true king. If you want proof of how Saladin's kingdom turned out after his death, just check out the condition that Kurdistan is in today. All in all, there are only ever a few good monarchs, such as the ones who found the kingdom, and all the rest just tear what their forebares made through their own sweat and blood to shreads. Nobility should be a word reserved for those who deserve it, not a bunch of idiots born into a certain "blue-blooded" family.
One of the things that really fries me about the whole concept of monarchy, however, is the fact that it promotes inequality. In our society, there are people of different ethnic backgrounds, religions, and mindsets, people who are rich, poor, and middle-class, people who have certain advantages and opportunities and people who don't, but at least, at the end of the day, everybody's as human as the next person. Nobody goes around giving any body special priveleges because it's "their birthright", and nobody gets off of doing crimes because they have a "divine right." So monarchs today don't have any real power and use what power they do have to do charitable work. So what? That makes them better than the rest of us? That means that rich people who put at least some of their hard-earned money towards good causes are inferior to people who put their inherited money towards good causes? Bagh, gimme a break.
Tell you what; if you're a monarch who's reading this page (Hah!), here's a simple way to earn my respect. Just give up your title, then keep using your money for any good causes (treat yourself a bit, too; what's the use of having money if your can't enjoy a bit of it, eh?). It's just that simple. So what are you waiting for? Earn the respect of a 15-year-old boy whose website has been visited by a sum total of 2 people (my brother and I included)and toss away that crown, preferably in my direction, so as I can hock it for money. Please do the right thing.
NOTE: The picture "William/Harry; the Bisexual, Buggering Brothers" picture was borrowed from "www.smh.com.au/.../ 2003/06/20/1055828464840.html", the shittily made mosiac was from "www.alanpotter-publicart.com/", the portrait of the fattest asshole to squeeze his head into a crown wobbled in from "www.volny.cz/esi-lessons/ Lessons/Maturita.htm", and that subtly edited poster from that damned awful movie "The Princess Diarrhea" is from "okladki-divx.neostrada.pl/ cover03.html". I got them all off of google's images.
