While I agree with you that the UK having a first-past-the-post voting system which creates a two party system can seem unfair, I believe - and I don’t want this to come across as rude- you are fundamentally missing the point here.
Since we are talking about democracy here in general, I will ignore the fact that the royal family have shielded an accused paedophile from any kind of prosecution, (enough reason to see the back of them for me) there are examples of better forms of democracy abroad and the continued presence of the royal family prevents us from adopting these systems.
Take France’s presidential system for example, it works with both a President and Prime Minister which actually increases the power of your vote and - in most cases - are more representative of the electorate, leading to stronger democratic foundations. Many countries in the world consider the UK’s form of government antiquated and in America - worst of all - the patronising adjective of ‘cute’ is attached.
However in the UK, the reason why you may feel that our democracy is unfair is because our head of state is - like you say - a narrow elite.
To even suggest that the people’s vote is ‘less equitable than a true monarchy’ is bizarre. I’d recommend more reading about electoral systems and the benefits of a proportional representative system.
Democracy is often seen as fair, but in practice, it's less equitable than a true monarchy. In a democracy, particularly in majoritarian systems, the will of the 51% dominates the 49%—and in cases like the UK, it's often closer to 30% ruling over the rest due to voter turnout and electoral mechanics. This gives a numerical majority disproportionate power to impose its will on minority groups.
In contrast, a monarchy—while seemingly authoritarian—is structurally more vulnerable, as its legitimacy and continuity rest on a single family or a narrow elite. This fragility means that even small, determined minority groups can exert significant influence or even overthrow a monarch. Historically, this dynamic gave local or cultural groups, like Cornwall, the leverage to maintain quasi-autonomy for extended periods—something much harder to achieve under centralised democratic governance.
Paradoxically, this makes monarchy more responsive to minority pressures than democracy. Tyrants in monarchies are often deposed or pressured by popular resistance. In democracies, however, the system tends to entrench the majority’s power, making it harder for marginalised voices to effect real change.
This is why the Magna Carta (or the Charter of the Forest) is not pro-people but actually pro-elite.
Democracies might fall short of what we want them to be but to say they are less equitable than a true monarchy is quite a statement—and one that is absurd to me. The idea that monarchy is more equitable or responsive to minorities doesn't stand up to historical or political proof.
Monarchies are authoritarian and some might be more vulnerable than others, but to say they are structurally more vulnerable than democratic parties is a big overstatement and a frankly mad assumption. They are NOT accountable by design! While some monarchs have been overthrown or pressured by uprisings, this is not the same as systemic accountability—it’s instability.
Yes, first-past-the-post has real flaws but minorities, historically under monarchies, were never empowered—they are tolerated at best. Colonial subjects are a clear example of this. Democracies can, and often do, build in minority protections because they seek to appeal to wider groups of voters.
You're absolutely right that the Magna Carta and Charter of the Forest were products of elite negotiation, but they were crucial early limits on arbitrary power, and laid the groundwork for later expansions of rights. The elites didn’t progress those rights of their own volition; they had to be demanded by the people who aimed towards more democratic ideals.
The final point is that democratic failure or voter disaffection isn’t an argument for monarchy, it’s a call for democratic reform.
Every monarchy in history has faced overthrow or serious challenge multiple times. The idea of monarchies as unshakeable authoritarian regimes is difficult to support when you consider how limited their actual power was. Monarchs rarely had large standing armies; the bulk of military force belonged to their vassals—the nobles—whose personal levies often outnumbered the king's own. These nobles were frequently in a position to depose a monarch or curb his authority, especially when it came to raising taxes, which affected them directly.
Monarchs were not absolute rulers in practice—they were constantly at the mercy of the nobility and the Church, who acted as powerful checks on royal ambition. And those same nobles were under pressure from their peasants, since their military power depended on the loyalty and stability of the population. If the peasants were unhappy, nobles feared revolt, which in turn put pressure on the monarch. This created a layered system of accountability, where even small groups—peasants, minor nobles, or local clergy—could influence or threaten the throne.
You yourself acknowledge this in part by referencing movements like those that led to the Magna Carta. Uprisings in regions such as Cornwall, Wales, and Northumberland were not rare—they were direct expressions of regional resistance, something we scarcely see in modern democracies. This constant threat meant that monarchs had to be responsive to a wide range of interests, or risk being removed.
Compare that to today’s governments. During COVID, we witnessed scandal after scandal, repeated tax rises, and ever-expanding government power—all without genuine accountability. Modern political systems are structurally insulated from public pressure in a way monarchies were not.
And to clarify, when I refer to “minorities,” I’m not talking solely about ethnic groups—though it's worth noting that in many monarchies, ethnic minorities like the Janissaries or other Ottoman groups had significant leverage, often keeping the Sultan in check and leading to autonomous regions such as the eyalets. These are further examples of decentralised, balanced power within monarchies.
In the end, it is the very failures of democracy that serve as one of the strongest arguments in favour of monarchy. Monarchy and democracy are not simply different systems—they are, in many ways, antithetical. And history shows that monarchy, despite its imperfections, was often more constrained, more locally accountable, and more easily checked by both elite and common voices alike.
Monarchs were sometimes checked by nobles or uprisings, but that wasn't real accountability—it was just power struggles among elites. Ordinary people had no voice, no rights, and no peaceful way to effect change. Rebellions weren’t a feature of the system—they were a symptom of its failure.
Modern democracies may be flawed, but they offer legal rights, elections, and the ability to reform. Monarchies, by contrast, are built on inherited power and exclusion. The solution to democratic failure isn’t feudal nostalgia—it’s democratic renewal.
Hi & thank you for the comment.
While I agree with you that the UK having a first-past-the-post voting system which creates a two party system can seem unfair, I believe - and I don’t want this to come across as rude- you are fundamentally missing the point here.
Since we are talking about democracy here in general, I will ignore the fact that the royal family have shielded an accused paedophile from any kind of prosecution, (enough reason to see the back of them for me) there are examples of better forms of democracy abroad and the continued presence of the royal family prevents us from adopting these systems.
Take France’s presidential system for example, it works with both a President and Prime Minister which actually increases the power of your vote and - in most cases - are more representative of the electorate, leading to stronger democratic foundations. Many countries in the world consider the UK’s form of government antiquated and in America - worst of all - the patronising adjective of ‘cute’ is attached.
However in the UK, the reason why you may feel that our democracy is unfair is because our head of state is - like you say - a narrow elite.
To even suggest that the people’s vote is ‘less equitable than a true monarchy’ is bizarre. I’d recommend more reading about electoral systems and the benefits of a proportional representative system.
Democracy is often seen as fair, but in practice, it's less equitable than a true monarchy. In a democracy, particularly in majoritarian systems, the will of the 51% dominates the 49%—and in cases like the UK, it's often closer to 30% ruling over the rest due to voter turnout and electoral mechanics. This gives a numerical majority disproportionate power to impose its will on minority groups.
In contrast, a monarchy—while seemingly authoritarian—is structurally more vulnerable, as its legitimacy and continuity rest on a single family or a narrow elite. This fragility means that even small, determined minority groups can exert significant influence or even overthrow a monarch. Historically, this dynamic gave local or cultural groups, like Cornwall, the leverage to maintain quasi-autonomy for extended periods—something much harder to achieve under centralised democratic governance.
Paradoxically, this makes monarchy more responsive to minority pressures than democracy. Tyrants in monarchies are often deposed or pressured by popular resistance. In democracies, however, the system tends to entrench the majority’s power, making it harder for marginalised voices to effect real change.
This is why the Magna Carta (or the Charter of the Forest) is not pro-people but actually pro-elite.
Democracies might fall short of what we want them to be but to say they are less equitable than a true monarchy is quite a statement—and one that is absurd to me. The idea that monarchy is more equitable or responsive to minorities doesn't stand up to historical or political proof.
Monarchies are authoritarian and some might be more vulnerable than others, but to say they are structurally more vulnerable than democratic parties is a big overstatement and a frankly mad assumption. They are NOT accountable by design! While some monarchs have been overthrown or pressured by uprisings, this is not the same as systemic accountability—it’s instability.
Yes, first-past-the-post has real flaws but minorities, historically under monarchies, were never empowered—they are tolerated at best. Colonial subjects are a clear example of this. Democracies can, and often do, build in minority protections because they seek to appeal to wider groups of voters.
You're absolutely right that the Magna Carta and Charter of the Forest were products of elite negotiation, but they were crucial early limits on arbitrary power, and laid the groundwork for later expansions of rights. The elites didn’t progress those rights of their own volition; they had to be demanded by the people who aimed towards more democratic ideals.
The final point is that democratic failure or voter disaffection isn’t an argument for monarchy, it’s a call for democratic reform.
Every monarchy in history has faced overthrow or serious challenge multiple times. The idea of monarchies as unshakeable authoritarian regimes is difficult to support when you consider how limited their actual power was. Monarchs rarely had large standing armies; the bulk of military force belonged to their vassals—the nobles—whose personal levies often outnumbered the king's own. These nobles were frequently in a position to depose a monarch or curb his authority, especially when it came to raising taxes, which affected them directly.
Monarchs were not absolute rulers in practice—they were constantly at the mercy of the nobility and the Church, who acted as powerful checks on royal ambition. And those same nobles were under pressure from their peasants, since their military power depended on the loyalty and stability of the population. If the peasants were unhappy, nobles feared revolt, which in turn put pressure on the monarch. This created a layered system of accountability, where even small groups—peasants, minor nobles, or local clergy—could influence or threaten the throne.
You yourself acknowledge this in part by referencing movements like those that led to the Magna Carta. Uprisings in regions such as Cornwall, Wales, and Northumberland were not rare—they were direct expressions of regional resistance, something we scarcely see in modern democracies. This constant threat meant that monarchs had to be responsive to a wide range of interests, or risk being removed.
Compare that to today’s governments. During COVID, we witnessed scandal after scandal, repeated tax rises, and ever-expanding government power—all without genuine accountability. Modern political systems are structurally insulated from public pressure in a way monarchies were not.
And to clarify, when I refer to “minorities,” I’m not talking solely about ethnic groups—though it's worth noting that in many monarchies, ethnic minorities like the Janissaries or other Ottoman groups had significant leverage, often keeping the Sultan in check and leading to autonomous regions such as the eyalets. These are further examples of decentralised, balanced power within monarchies.
In the end, it is the very failures of democracy that serve as one of the strongest arguments in favour of monarchy. Monarchy and democracy are not simply different systems—they are, in many ways, antithetical. And history shows that monarchy, despite its imperfections, was often more constrained, more locally accountable, and more easily checked by both elite and common voices alike.
Monarchs were sometimes checked by nobles or uprisings, but that wasn't real accountability—it was just power struggles among elites. Ordinary people had no voice, no rights, and no peaceful way to effect change. Rebellions weren’t a feature of the system—they were a symptom of its failure.
Modern democracies may be flawed, but they offer legal rights, elections, and the ability to reform. Monarchies, by contrast, are built on inherited power and exclusion. The solution to democratic failure isn’t feudal nostalgia—it’s democratic renewal.