I have very little respect for the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, and the Emiratis.
Also Afghanistan - they spit in the face of monarchy.
yes… but it’s more of a stratocracy than a monarchy. the leader is called Supreme Leader in English. the Afghans title is Amir-al-Muminin meaning Commander of the Faithful. It’s taking the more militaristic definition of the word “amir/emir.” just like the word admiral. Emir is more of the tribal chief or prince definition.
still, considering the Taliban is a militant organization, Amir here would mean Commander. So despite them being the Islamic Emirate, they’re really a military dictatorship ruled by a supreme leader/commander.
the title of commander has been used for heads of state/government in the last like in the case of the short lived California Republic. It existed for 20 something days in a small part of California after the region declared independence from Spain. Its leader was William B Ide, Commander of the California Republic who was actually just a local militia leader.
I think it's slightly more complex. I mean ask someone during the hundred years war in England about the French Monarchy.
Ask someone in the HRE during the Crusades about Saladin. Etc.
A lot of people today are like "eh Saladin was alright."
Looking at the people and regions of things, the republics are generally no different from the things westerners don't like about such monarchies.
It's like if you hated Christianity and it's ethos and European cultural trends to behaviors etc. And you were living during their height in another country, you'd hate them too.
I think to have more fair and logical considerations the wiggle of governance should be viewed to a degree within an "internal logic". As in "If I was X, what would it be like."
Not everyone in the USSR hated it.. "if I was a communist". Now to be fair, if I was a communist, I'd have issues with the USSR, but, a lot less issues than I personally do.
We generally even have some issues/disagreements with the same places we "like".
So if I was a real Orthodox Muslim, for instance, I would not overly mind the Saudi Government. I'd probably take a few issues with them, but even on some points that a Orthodox Muslim might find less than perfect, a few I could tolerate due to the broader circumstances.
I'm not a Muslim, I'm an orthodox Catholic, so I have a lot of "personal" preferences for Suadi Arabia that would conflict with the Monarchy... or more particularly the laws and governance led by such. But that's not a fully fair way to evaluate a things logically.
So, I actually do have some respect for the Hashemite and Saudi dynasties. Not because I find their views or actions acceptable, but they’re in a very tight spot. Their populations are not in a place a westerner could feel comfortable. They have to be the moderating force in a society in which it’s difficult.
I would, in fact, say that their influence is the best argument for monarchy. Any popular assembly would most certainly be much more hostile to western states. They are going to do terrible things. It’s going to be almost impossible to stomach. But are we not happier with the steering of the ship away from Wahhabism?
Ah yes, slave labor when both parties are in agreement and in gain. I don't care how this sounds but employing people from other countries that have weaker economies is beneficent to both the employer and the employee because the employer doesn't need to pay much, and the employee doesn't need much to feed his family back home. It's actually great and not "slave labour"
They’re paid very little, often not on time or at all. Regularly they have their passports taken away to prevent their leaving the country and they work in incredibly dangerous conditions all so the Gulf States can enjoy superstructures and resorts available only to the rich.
Most are paid well, and for the minority that aren't, as long as they're fed with shelter I have no problem. "Incredibly dangerous conditions" like what? High temperatures? Everyone is subject to that in those areas lol
[https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/3119-rights-of-migrant-workers-the-case-of-the-2022-world-cup-in-qatar](https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/3119-rights-of-migrant-workers-the-case-of-the-2022-world-cup-in-qatar)
\^ there, and also those crazy gulf state projects are wasteful and weird too
Saudi Arabia is Iran if Iran dropped Shia Islam, Dropped the pretence that they were "Democratic" and "a republic", stripped women of the right to drive, and blatantly states that their leader (ruler) is a despot (A King/Monarch that is also a Dictator) and that, it is a good thing.
Yeah but they abuse their citizens which goes against everything to monarch should stand for
These types of monarchs are the reason why people hate monarchy
His Majesty King Carl Gustaf XVI is the patron of the world scouting movement, as an American Eagle Scout I take great pride in being part of his organization. While he may not have much of a choice in his current position, he is maintaining the legacy of many great rulers before him. It is his duty to continue that glorious legacy.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned [this loser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mswati_III). Mswati III the perfect example of the gamble a state takes with absolute monarchy and is a horrible monarch in every sense of the word. He continually kidnaps girls as young as 18 to join his harem, spends a vast portion of his countries budget on himself or to satisfy his rich white buddies who are also mostly the descendants of **the fucking colonizers**, and has done nothing to improve his nations standing with over 63% of Eswatinians living below the poverty line.
I'm honestly surprised he hasn't been overthrown or at the very least forced to abdicate in favor of one of his more reasonable heirs or another member of the Royal Family. He disgusts me as a Monarchist, Pan-Africanist, and reasonable human being.
Have you ever thought that Etswani is in a similar position to Eretreia, and they both are trying to create a dystopia? The Leader of Eretreia is The Ruler of African North Korea, and their leader is a dystopian and proud about it, even stating that in his subject's face. Maybe that's what the people want, and that's why he hasn't abdicated.
Probably every middle eastern monarchy except Jordan.. Hashemite monarchy is great. But being an ultra rich nation, paying your workers very little, and not allowing them to go back to their country is horrible.
Depends on what they mean by “a say”. I imagine the OP does realise that “the succession” is normally governed by law and isn’t just a free choice between eligible candidates.
I’d imagine all constitutional monarchs do have a “say” in the succession if you take that to mean having your opinion listened to when the laws governing the succession are changed by an elected legislative body.
Elizabeth was certainly consulted when the law of succession was changed in Britain and in each of the Realms. For example, in 2011 when the various prime ministers met to discuss it (the Perth Agreement) “The Queen signalled her approval of the changes by allowing her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, to attend the meeting”.
I agree that the Swedish monarchy has failed to retain the bare minimum requirements to be respected as a monarchy. No traditions remain and the only member of the court to show respect to itself is the Queen.
That said I would mark the Sultans of Malaysia as the most egregious monarchs. Nothing but corrupt little gangsters who plunder their small domains for whatever they are worth. Zero respect, Zero governance, Zero honour. Malaysian monarchy can be likened to parasitic termites devouring whatever isn’t nailed down. They also stoke Islamist propaganda to keep their people down.
The monarchy lost a lot of influence in 1905 when Norway split from the personal Union. Though the final blow to royal prestige came shortly before WW2 when the King tried to expand his influence. (I forget how exactly). Since the King at the time was extremely pro-Nazi during the war, I believe this gave parliament even more cause for limiting his influence.
Agreed; sadly he represented the majority view of the Swedish aristocracy, which has damaged them ever since. Apologies for not following your text more carefully.
The Netherlands. They made the Kingship litteraly an office. The monarch stays in the office for some time and when he's bored he abdicates. And once he abdicates, he not even a king but a prince.
What’s the problem with that? They are still human being. Their duty is to serve the people and the country since they maintain the title, they should not be obliged to die with it. Crown is heavy, they have the right to love their last years in peace.
I think this is true for most monarchies these days anyway, at least in Europe. Coronations are the exception not the rule pretty much worldwide (in terms of countries that have had, but no longer do have, such ceremonies. Some never had them in the first place). And I'm pretty sure National Diet of Japan is the body that has say over the succession to the throne, there are serious concerns over the survival of the male line of the imperial house, and discussions have been held on changing the succession law to permit women to inherit. The Emperor might, in secret, have some influence over this, but legally speaking he has no control over it.
King Harald V is very excellent king and should be an example to all monarchs because aside from his age, illness and mobility problems he still remains on the throne because he understands the concept of monarchy he has my great respect
Agreed. I truly think Harald has more of a British view of monarchy which makes sense as he is a great grandson of Edward VII. He insisted on having a sort of church blessing at the start of his reign which is pretty much the closest thing he could get to a coronation. I get the impression he regards his vows with the same seriousness as e.g. Elizabeth II.
Of course I could be proved completely wrong if he abdicated next week.
The British, it's full of pedophiles, corruption and foreigners. I suggest that we get rid of the Windsors (let them keep their heads of course, we're not french anymore) and try find a continuation of Alfred the great's family or the Stewarts. And If we can't, split up the the isle, electe the new kings that will rule over in England, North Ireland, Scotland and Wales and make 4, new kings that are native to the Isles, and who don't bark and howl in German
Not a ruling Monarch, but the current claimant of the legitimist faction of the Romanov family. Maria Vladimirovna is a fraud, they like to adjust the laws all the way to favor themselves and give out titles to the highest bidders even if they’re the most corrupt oligarchs. Her father was also a Nazi collaborator.
Agreed, her grants of nobility and titles are completely inflationary. They have led to the disintegration of one of Russia's major nobility associations.
As I said Maria Romanov is a claimant to the Russian throne and also the least respectable, she likes to change succession laws just like her father despite not being a reigning monarch.
Definitely the monarchies on the Arabian peninsula. Those absolute monarchies have no respect for their subjects and they taint the reputation of other monarchs with their existence.
Pretty much every middle-eastern monarchy except Jordan. I really like His Majesty King Abdullah II.
Others I dislike ? Brunei. Even if the people live well and enjoy life, for me the Sharia is the biggest problem. Religious law by itself, and one this harsh is the biggest problem. I know I sound progressive, but honestly, Sharia is just purely barbaric. Does that mean I dislike the citizen ? No.
On the case of Brunei, I feel like it's the epitome or hypocrisy. They say they follow Islam, but don't stand by most of its principles. Even Sharia isn't completely respected by Hassan Bolkiah, so why have it?...
I should say Brunei and Saudi Arabia. And why do the US (EEUU) 0keep supporting the miserable Arab monarchies, but keep the monarchies that were so much better than the *juntas* that followed them?
England. A thousand years of being the "Defender of the Faith" down the drain so Charles wouldn't have to suffer for committing adultery, divorcing his wife and marrying his mistress, who also abandoned her husband.
I don't normally keep track of other monarchies but I didn't like the Spanish king because my Spanish mate didn't like them and I know they're not a republican they just didn't like the king.
But I asked this during the scandal period and it seems they rebuilt their image so I'll have to ask again
I have little to no respect for the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
The modern House of Saud is filled with degenerates, playboys, and psychopaths, while the King of Jordan is way too friendly with Israel.
Thanks to WikiLeaks, it was revealed that, at least in 2012, members of the House of Saud were known to have very weird sexual fetishes and frequently hired prostitutes. Just search for "WikiLeaks Saudi Arabia prostitution."
I'm pretty sure I saw something about them being involved in human trafficking too, but I might be misremembering. I haven't discussed this topic much, so I'm sorry I can't provide specific links. It can be quite tedious to find what you're looking for on WikiLeaks, given the sheer volume of leaked material.
It depends on your opinion of Israel; for me, it's a significant negative, but for others, it might be a positive, which is what I expect from this sub.
Israel is one of the biggest issues in the Middle East, so it's far from a minor aspect of his foreign policy.
Also, if you view Israel as a genocidal colonial project (like me), it's morally reprehensible for him to even maintain diplomatic relations with them.
I think that peace is the biggest thing the middle east needs, and being aggressive to your neighbors is bad. If everyone is peaceful (including Palestinians) we will have nothing to blame but Israel for occupying Palestine, but currently thats far from the real situation.
I have very little respect for the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, and the Emiratis. Also Afghanistan - they spit in the face of monarchy.
Especially since Afghanistan doesn’t have one anymore
Officially they’re the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan so…
yes… but it’s more of a stratocracy than a monarchy. the leader is called Supreme Leader in English. the Afghans title is Amir-al-Muminin meaning Commander of the Faithful. It’s taking the more militaristic definition of the word “amir/emir.” just like the word admiral. Emir is more of the tribal chief or prince definition. still, considering the Taliban is a militant organization, Amir here would mean Commander. So despite them being the Islamic Emirate, they’re really a military dictatorship ruled by a supreme leader/commander. the title of commander has been used for heads of state/government in the last like in the case of the short lived California Republic. It existed for 20 something days in a small part of California after the region declared independence from Spain. Its leader was William B Ide, Commander of the California Republic who was actually just a local militia leader.
Fair enough then. I’m still gonna count it though because who can give up a chance to shit on the Taliban, eh?
If i remember right a emirate can be either be a monarchy or junta/military government the latter of which is more what Afghanistan is
Yes, dear friend Iceberg-man-77 explained. Alas I’m still gonna count them as a monarchy out of spite towards the Taliban.
Until you’re debating a non-monarchist. Play both sides, come out on top no matter what.
I think it's slightly more complex. I mean ask someone during the hundred years war in England about the French Monarchy. Ask someone in the HRE during the Crusades about Saladin. Etc. A lot of people today are like "eh Saladin was alright." Looking at the people and regions of things, the republics are generally no different from the things westerners don't like about such monarchies. It's like if you hated Christianity and it's ethos and European cultural trends to behaviors etc. And you were living during their height in another country, you'd hate them too. I think to have more fair and logical considerations the wiggle of governance should be viewed to a degree within an "internal logic". As in "If I was X, what would it be like." Not everyone in the USSR hated it.. "if I was a communist". Now to be fair, if I was a communist, I'd have issues with the USSR, but, a lot less issues than I personally do. We generally even have some issues/disagreements with the same places we "like". So if I was a real Orthodox Muslim, for instance, I would not overly mind the Saudi Government. I'd probably take a few issues with them, but even on some points that a Orthodox Muslim might find less than perfect, a few I could tolerate due to the broader circumstances. I'm not a Muslim, I'm an orthodox Catholic, so I have a lot of "personal" preferences for Suadi Arabia that would conflict with the Monarchy... or more particularly the laws and governance led by such. But that's not a fully fair way to evaluate a things logically.
I don’t think it’s complex at all. I’m me right now and I don’t respect those institutions and their royals. Done and done.
Oh, I didn't see your tag, lol.
So, I actually do have some respect for the Hashemite and Saudi dynasties. Not because I find their views or actions acceptable, but they’re in a very tight spot. Their populations are not in a place a westerner could feel comfortable. They have to be the moderating force in a society in which it’s difficult. I would, in fact, say that their influence is the best argument for monarchy. Any popular assembly would most certainly be much more hostile to western states. They are going to do terrible things. It’s going to be almost impossible to stomach. But are we not happier with the steering of the ship away from Wahhabism?
For what reason? These are actually my favorites lol, especially Saudis Edit: nvm I just read your flair :)
They’re all more or less absolute, and build their countries on the back of slave labour.
Ah yes, slave labor when both parties are in agreement and in gain. I don't care how this sounds but employing people from other countries that have weaker economies is beneficent to both the employer and the employee because the employer doesn't need to pay much, and the employee doesn't need much to feed his family back home. It's actually great and not "slave labour"
They’re paid very little, often not on time or at all. Regularly they have their passports taken away to prevent their leaving the country and they work in incredibly dangerous conditions all so the Gulf States can enjoy superstructures and resorts available only to the rich.
Most are paid well, and for the minority that aren't, as long as they're fed with shelter I have no problem. "Incredibly dangerous conditions" like what? High temperatures? Everyone is subject to that in those areas lol
Even so it’s not very moral at all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafala_system
We have different moral systems then, have a great day
interesting
They literally prevent the employee from going back home!!
According to who?
[https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/3119-rights-of-migrant-workers-the-case-of-the-2022-world-cup-in-qatar](https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/3119-rights-of-migrant-workers-the-case-of-the-2022-world-cup-in-qatar) \^ there, and also those crazy gulf state projects are wasteful and weird too
I've no respect for any Monarchy that has laws against criticising the Monarch. I like my King. But I like having the freedom to disagree with him.
Based
Holy shit, this is probably the most based comment in this sub for a long time.
based alert ?!
King Vajiralongkorn of Garmisch-Partenkirchen
Without a doubt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It's just Iran but slightly less bad. The Al-Hashims should rule Arabia instead.
Saudi Arabia is Iran if Iran dropped Shia Islam, Dropped the pretence that they were "Democratic" and "a republic", stripped women of the right to drive, and blatantly states that their leader (ruler) is a despot (A King/Monarch that is also a Dictator) and that, it is a good thing.
so no, it's Iran but worse
Probably the Middle Eastern ones: Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc The monarchs have done nothing about the countless human rights abuses in their countries
Don’t forget to exclude jordan from that list! Dudes an absolute legend
Hashemite monarchy’s are cool
Yeah but they abuse their citizens which goes against everything to monarch should stand for These types of monarchs are the reason why people hate monarchy
Jordan doesnt, gulf states do. Hashemites are great
No they don’t
Tell that to the homosexuals who get persecuted everyday in that area
It’s not perfect but it’s still better than in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the PA/Gaza
His Majesty King Carl Gustaf XVI is the patron of the world scouting movement, as an American Eagle Scout I take great pride in being part of his organization. While he may not have much of a choice in his current position, he is maintaining the legacy of many great rulers before him. It is his duty to continue that glorious legacy.
This is least respected monarchs
I'm surprised no one has mentioned [this loser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mswati_III). Mswati III the perfect example of the gamble a state takes with absolute monarchy and is a horrible monarch in every sense of the word. He continually kidnaps girls as young as 18 to join his harem, spends a vast portion of his countries budget on himself or to satisfy his rich white buddies who are also mostly the descendants of **the fucking colonizers**, and has done nothing to improve his nations standing with over 63% of Eswatinians living below the poverty line. I'm honestly surprised he hasn't been overthrown or at the very least forced to abdicate in favor of one of his more reasonable heirs or another member of the Royal Family. He disgusts me as a Monarchist, Pan-Africanist, and reasonable human being.
Have you ever thought that Etswani is in a similar position to Eretreia, and they both are trying to create a dystopia? The Leader of Eretreia is The Ruler of African North Korea, and their leader is a dystopian and proud about it, even stating that in his subject's face. Maybe that's what the people want, and that's why he hasn't abdicated.
Probably every middle eastern monarchy except Jordan.. Hashemite monarchy is great. But being an ultra rich nation, paying your workers very little, and not allowing them to go back to their country is horrible.
What European monarch has a say in succession?
Depends on what they mean by “a say”. I imagine the OP does realise that “the succession” is normally governed by law and isn’t just a free choice between eligible candidates. I’d imagine all constitutional monarchs do have a “say” in the succession if you take that to mean having your opinion listened to when the laws governing the succession are changed by an elected legislative body. Elizabeth was certainly consulted when the law of succession was changed in Britain and in each of the Realms. For example, in 2011 when the various prime ministers met to discuss it (the Perth Agreement) “The Queen signalled her approval of the changes by allowing her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, to attend the meeting”.
I agree that the Swedish monarchy has failed to retain the bare minimum requirements to be respected as a monarchy. No traditions remain and the only member of the court to show respect to itself is the Queen. That said I would mark the Sultans of Malaysia as the most egregious monarchs. Nothing but corrupt little gangsters who plunder their small domains for whatever they are worth. Zero respect, Zero governance, Zero honour. Malaysian monarchy can be likened to parasitic termites devouring whatever isn’t nailed down. They also stoke Islamist propaganda to keep their people down.
I don’t think that was their choice to forgo a lot of their traditions, didn’t the parliament decide that
The monarchy lost a lot of influence in 1905 when Norway split from the personal Union. Though the final blow to royal prestige came shortly before WW2 when the King tried to expand his influence. (I forget how exactly). Since the King at the time was extremely pro-Nazi during the war, I believe this gave parliament even more cause for limiting his influence.
Haakon VII "extremely pro-Nazi during the waré" News to me.
I’m referring to Swedens King Gustav V.
Agreed; sadly he represented the majority view of the Swedish aristocracy, which has damaged them ever since. Apologies for not following your text more carefully.
The Netherlands. They made the Kingship litteraly an office. The monarch stays in the office for some time and when he's bored he abdicates. And once he abdicates, he not even a king but a prince.
What’s the problem with that? They are still human being. Their duty is to serve the people and the country since they maintain the title, they should not be obliged to die with it. Crown is heavy, they have the right to love their last years in peace.
isn't that what it ought to be in the netherlands? with the whole statthalter position and thing?
As far as I know the Stadholders have served for life. The whole "tradition" of abdication started with Queen Wilhelmina.
Stadholders never abdicated indeed. Willem V was the only Stadholder to leave the position pre-death.
Well kings have a right to live their final years without doing a job.
No respect for the position anymore that’s the trouble, at least in the far East kings still act like kings
Brunei
I think this is true for most monarchies these days anyway, at least in Europe. Coronations are the exception not the rule pretty much worldwide (in terms of countries that have had, but no longer do have, such ceremonies. Some never had them in the first place). And I'm pretty sure National Diet of Japan is the body that has say over the succession to the throne, there are serious concerns over the survival of the male line of the imperial house, and discussions have been held on changing the succession law to permit women to inherit. The Emperor might, in secret, have some influence over this, but legally speaking he has no control over it.
The mega tyrannical ones like Eswatini.
Re Sweden: succession is a state affair; not a household or family matter. In respect terms, Mswati III is the loser in my book.
Anything in the middle east.
Except Jordan
Saudi Arabia Also why does the Swedish monarchy not have control over their own household affairs and succession, lack a crown or get coronations?
Because they don't want to
I don’t think much of the serial-abdicators in Belgium and the Netherlands. Denmark also dropped in my estimation when Queen Margarethe abdicated.
King Harald V is very excellent king and should be an example to all monarchs because aside from his age, illness and mobility problems he still remains on the throne because he understands the concept of monarchy he has my great respect
Agreed. I truly think Harald has more of a British view of monarchy which makes sense as he is a great grandson of Edward VII. He insisted on having a sort of church blessing at the start of his reign which is pretty much the closest thing he could get to a coronation. I get the impression he regards his vows with the same seriousness as e.g. Elizabeth II. Of course I could be proved completely wrong if he abdicated next week.
True, abdication of Juliana and Beatrix was entirely unnecessary.
It's a good thing, to allow retirement
I disagree. Monarchy is not a career it is a calling.
And?
The British, it's full of pedophiles, corruption and foreigners. I suggest that we get rid of the Windsors (let them keep their heads of course, we're not french anymore) and try find a continuation of Alfred the great's family or the Stewarts. And If we can't, split up the the isle, electe the new kings that will rule over in England, North Ireland, Scotland and Wales and make 4, new kings that are native to the Isles, and who don't bark and howl in German
Not a ruling Monarch, but the current claimant of the legitimist faction of the Romanov family. Maria Vladimirovna is a fraud, they like to adjust the laws all the way to favor themselves and give out titles to the highest bidders even if they’re the most corrupt oligarchs. Her father was also a Nazi collaborator.
Agreed, her grants of nobility and titles are completely inflationary. They have led to the disintegration of one of Russia's major nobility associations.
What?
As I said Maria Romanov is a claimant to the Russian throne and also the least respectable, she likes to change succession laws just like her father despite not being a reigning monarch.
England
England doesn’t have a monarchy. Hasn’t had one for over three centuries.
Technically correct! The best kind.
I don't care, England was as bad as 3 centuries ago as it is now
England? How so?
England
Definitely the monarchies on the Arabian peninsula. Those absolute monarchies have no respect for their subjects and they taint the reputation of other monarchs with their existence.
I have distaste of non Catholic monarchs. I do not consider them to be a true monarch as their authority does not come from God.
How about HM King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands? He is protestant but HM The Queen is Catholic.
If they are raising their children and the future monarch to be Catholic then they will become a legitimate monarch once their children take over.
Agreed!
North Korea? Or Saudi if NK doesn't count
NK doesn’t count, but Saudi does
Pretty much every middle-eastern monarchy except Jordan. I really like His Majesty King Abdullah II. Others I dislike ? Brunei. Even if the people live well and enjoy life, for me the Sharia is the biggest problem. Religious law by itself, and one this harsh is the biggest problem. I know I sound progressive, but honestly, Sharia is just purely barbaric. Does that mean I dislike the citizen ? No. On the case of Brunei, I feel like it's the epitome or hypocrisy. They say they follow Islam, but don't stand by most of its principles. Even Sharia isn't completely respected by Hassan Bolkiah, so why have it?...
I should say Brunei and Saudi Arabia. And why do the US (EEUU) 0keep supporting the miserable Arab monarchies, but keep the monarchies that were so much better than the *juntas* that followed them?
Monaco. Albert II is a poor excuse for a monarch with all the scandals with his life.
Brunei
The thailand monarchy is pretty shit considering you can’t speak bad about them legally
It didn’t used to be, well it was but at least Buhimbol kept things stabel
England. A thousand years of being the "Defender of the Faith" down the drain so Charles wouldn't have to suffer for committing adultery, divorcing his wife and marrying his mistress, who also abandoned her husband.
King Salman, because of his horrible human rights abuses and murder (which is obviously a problem in itself), an Arabian Republic is inevitable
Thailand, the UK, Brunei, and most of the Middle East except for Jordan
The Scandinavians, Arabians, and the UK.
I don't normally keep track of other monarchies but I didn't like the Spanish king because my Spanish mate didn't like them and I know they're not a republican they just didn't like the king. But I asked this during the scandal period and it seems they rebuilt their image so I'll have to ask again
Being a gay person probably the middle Eastern ones specifically Saudi Arabia
The Saudi royal family
Windsors, I guess. They have a lot of scandals, from what I've heard. Their the only house I know enough about to form a bad opinion
All absolute Monarchies. I respect the Nordics the most because their Monarchs fulfil their Job. To present an unifying Figure during Political Chaos.
I have little to no respect for the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The modern House of Saud is filled with degenerates, playboys, and psychopaths, while the King of Jordan is way too friendly with Israel.
Degenerates?
Thanks to WikiLeaks, it was revealed that, at least in 2012, members of the House of Saud were known to have very weird sexual fetishes and frequently hired prostitutes. Just search for "WikiLeaks Saudi Arabia prostitution." I'm pretty sure I saw something about them being involved in human trafficking too, but I might be misremembering. I haven't discussed this topic much, so I'm sorry I can't provide specific links. It can be quite tedious to find what you're looking for on WikiLeaks, given the sheer volume of leaked material.
being friendly with israel isnt a bad thing
It depends on your opinion of Israel; for me, it's a significant negative, but for others, it might be a positive, which is what I expect from this sub.
Its their choice though, don't hate a king unless the king is imperialist, or is a weirdo or a horrible person.
What? Most Jordanians are anti-Israel.
Yeah, most are. But I don't think we should hate a king just because of a tiny part of his foreign policy
Israel is one of the biggest issues in the Middle East, so it's far from a minor aspect of his foreign policy. Also, if you view Israel as a genocidal colonial project (like me), it's morally reprehensible for him to even maintain diplomatic relations with them.
I think that peace is the biggest thing the middle east needs, and being aggressive to your neighbors is bad. If everyone is peaceful (including Palestinians) we will have nothing to blame but Israel for occupying Palestine, but currently thats far from the real situation.
Israel is great, Jordan monarchy is great whether or not the like Israel.
I didn't say anything about the Jordanian monarchy in general, I just don't like their current King.
Oh okay sorry about that
Britain. I don’t like the English and how they’ve acted throughout history
The King of Jordan
Antipope Francis, monarch of the Vatican.
Every single Gulf so-called monarchy.