Cromwell ruined your argument a bit as thanks to his rule, the English WANTED a monarchy again and even referred to Charles II coming back as 'The great Restoration'
I'm half and half on monarchy. On the one hand there is more inclination to legacy with monarchy, you can have strong leadership and the weak emotionals can't enforce their rules by mob.
On the other, it's a lot easier for one generation to fuck up everything..
I don't know, maybe combine monarchy with a requirement that you need to pass special forces training with NO leniency and only then you get the title of successor.
It's more like, people wanted monarchy but, they remained English through the transition. If monarchy was requisite for being English, the country would have fallen apart with the monarchy. But instead it flourished under Cromwell in many ways.
Cromwell ruined your argument a bit as thanks to his rule, the English WANTED a monarchy again and even referred to Charles II coming back as 'The great Restoration'
I'm half and half on monarchy. On the one hand there is more inclination to legacy with monarchy, you can have strong leadership and the weak emotionals can't enforce their rules by mob.
On the other, it's a lot easier for one generation to fuck up everything..
I don't know, maybe combine monarchy with a requirement that you need to pass special forces training with NO leniency and only then you get the title of successor.
Just because the possible ideological spread within a race is substantial, doesn't make race unimportant.
It's more like, people wanted monarchy but, they remained English through the transition. If monarchy was requisite for being English, the country would have fallen apart with the monarchy. But instead it flourished under Cromwell in many ways.