"Unless you got a bad heir to the crown then Monarchy is a lot more robust than democracy."
The bad heir is the weak spot of monarchy. And of democracy as well, since a people too may have a bad generation, not just a family.
"Major negative point.
"Just because you are the child of a great leader does not mean that you will be a great leader yourself."
Applies to followers as well. Formerly known as subjects.
"No one really gives a damn how the country is run as long as they are happy and things are going smoothly."
Unless, of course, it is their task to "give a damn".
"The monarch does not have to win votes thus they can make unpopular decisions which are in the interests of their subjects without the fear of losing votes."
He can even afford to be popularly indolent and laissez-faire - without fear of not getting votes.
"Why are they so evil, it is because they are born into a life they did not choose, it is that they are under the spot light everywhere they go and in anything they do, it is because they generate millions upon millions of pounds of money through tourists, it is that they are one of Britians greatest diplomatic tool."
A thing which might twist someone's mind to real evil, too.
"It is because we don't want to think anyone is better than us. pfff!"
That is the cause of much suppositions of evil.
"To supplement Tim's point concerning competence of leaders, I've observed an alarming degree of balatant double-standards amongst republicans. There have been plenty of bad presidents in history - indeed, given the political inclinations of most republicans in Britain at least, they're trying to have "spitting venom at the merest mention of George Bush" registered as an Olympic sport. And yet a republican system is hailed as a flawless arrangement that only produces good leaders, whilst the moment it is insinuated that a king isn't the Resurrected Christ (and who is?) the entire institution is "unworkable"?"
A "democracy" (as the word now means) can get rid of a bad "leader" (formerly known as ruler) at the next election. If lucky. A monarchy can get rid of a bad ruler at next natural or unnatural demise. If lucky. And both then could get a better one. If lucky. Demises are, however, not limited to good rulers - neither are ballot box losses.
"Anyone who beleives the Monarchy is out dated and a Republic would be more modern is foolish. The Republican form of Government is as old as Monarchism itself."
Actually not, since Kain was the first ruler of a city-state.
But family (Adam and Eve raising both Kain and Abel with a lot of unnamed siblings) is about one* or two centuries* older than the state. And it is not the older thing that gets outdated sooner.
Like in taking care of the old: the French are now touching the privileged retirement arrangements and the Swedes had touched the general ones four years earlier, August/September 2003. In Germany, early 2005, they were discussing forcing the active population to work more in order precisely to keep the promises to the old. Including cutting down privileges for families with children (who were then less than 50% of the voters).
St Lucy's day 2007
Aix en Provence
*The Septuagint says: about two centuries. At least if Kain founding Nod (east of Eden) is contemporary with Seth being born to replace Abel. The Massoretic text says: about one century.