I know that's the main argument against the monarchy, but then nobody really gets rid of the presidents either. "We have a mechanism to get rid of him" is irrelevant if you never use that mechanism. Who cares whether it's more difficult to get rid of the king than the president (arguable) when it's essentially the same?
And honestly the presidents do not represent the best in the nation. With a king, "weak or sinful" is a "maybe". With a president, it's a "maybe not".
Theoretically the best of the two worlds would be an elective monarchy, such as eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century or Vatican currently -- but the practice shows that it's actually the worst of the two worlds. You get an uneducated, psychologically impaired head of state with royal powers for life.
The main problem with monarchs is you get to generations with weak or sinful kings, and it's hard to get rid of them
I mean shit England got a queen for some reason
I know that's the main argument against the monarchy, but then nobody really gets rid of the presidents either. "We have a mechanism to get rid of him" is irrelevant if you never use that mechanism. Who cares whether it's more difficult to get rid of the king than the president (arguable) when it's essentially the same?
And honestly the presidents do not represent the best in the nation. With a king, "weak or sinful" is a "maybe". With a president, it's a "maybe not".
Theoretically the best of the two worlds would be an elective monarchy, such as eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century or Vatican currently -- but the practice shows that it's actually the worst of the two worlds. You get an uneducated, psychologically impaired head of state with royal powers for life.
Presidents automatically time out in most countries. yeah, it's a problem where they don't. They're usually called dictators.