philosopher

I never quite understood the point in a modern sense how hereditary power can be any more useful or even as good as other autocratic measures.

Take for instance the House of Lords in the U.K or any monarchy in Europe.

Now while some monarchies in Europe does not use their power to gain political influence, I still do not understand how any modern people can say that it is good to have a hereditary right to get political power.

I fully understand the meaning, its use and the purpose of autocratic (in lack of any better word, sorry) power, such as officers, military, academics or what have you.

But based solely on your heritage? Explain it to me, please

What rational reasons are there to give certain people the right to a throne or political influence based solely on their heritage and not their skills?

philosopher

Due to a double post, flaxman wrote this comment on it, I am copying it into this thread instead:

Could you eleborate on that one please?

flaxman

In the context of royalty you need to be able to look forward to a stable handover from one reign to another. This was basically one of the structural weaknesses of the Anglo Saxon royal line in that it wasn't hereditary.

philosopher

I do understand the historical need for hereditary power. I do not understand its need in modern days in a western civilized world where there is a certain political stability (Scandinavia - yes I know we have monarchies here, but they don't use their political power to gain influence).

Electoral monarchies used to have the weakness as war of succession in the Middle Ages, and that was why Absolute Monarchy and Hereditary power was established later on.

But when there is no war of succession and the people accept a democratic and open governmental power, I do not see how we need someone sitting in the parliament who has a birth right to a seat.

Birth right to a throne/political power proved ineffective in Denmark in the 1770's when the insane, lunatic of Christian VII was king.

This could be avoided through either democracy, parliamentary democracy or any kind of non-hereditary absolutism/autocracy.

flaxman

Sometimes democracy doesn't work. look at the Weimar Repulic and its demise. I think it really does depend who is the benificary of the hereditary transfer of power. Are they people of great achievement in life? Do they have power, economic, military or political? In the UK The House of Lords has a role to play in taming the excesses of Parliament. Sometimes Parliament becomes a dictatorship itself.

jeroenrottgering

It provides stability and continuity, while with elected members it is always the question what to expect. People knew what they got under the Kaiser, but had no idea what sort of man Hitler would turn it eventhough he was elected.

Monarchies also provide a lot of prestige and since they reign longer then the average president, their foreign relations are better maintained.

To my knowledge the Danish people love their monarch.

philosopher

Thank you for your answers.
That gave me a bit more knowledge into monarchy. Thank you