[sashank_1509]

How is a dictatorship different from a monarchy? There have been plenty of good monarchies throughout history. Frederick The Great, created the Prussian State. Stuart’s were well loved that they ended parliamentary democracy to restore the Stuarts. Victorian, Elizabethan era were also prosperous and well known. Ceasar was the final monarch who united the enmity between the nobles and plebs.

The problem is we look at those states and all we see is the existence of slavery (that existed in all societies till at least 1800AD), women being relegated to a different social role etc. But it is wrong to assume that any of those were due to monarchy and that a monarchy in the modern age would not rule based on modern values. Just look at Singapore, for a small example of a monarchy ruling based on current social mores. Unfortunately since WW1, monarchies throughout the world have vanished, and all we have are liberal democracies, so we can’t say either way.

[Yoric]

I'm going to assume that you're speaking of monarchies in which the monarch is the actual ruler, rather than UK, Belgium, the Netherlands or Canada for instance, right?

In that case, I'd say that a monarchy is essentially dictatorship + a (usually) clear line of succession.

[sashank_1509]

Fair enough, yes I mean monarchies proper, where the government is actually monarchical, not a ceremonial monarch.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Thailand, Bhutan might be the only monarchies left. (Monarchy + clear form of succession).

[Yoric]

There's a little fear in France, because the head of the far right party is the daughter of the former head, and the aunt of the rising star. Since that party seems not unlikely to win the next Presidential elections, we might end up with a monarchy in France.

Hurray us.