Not really, as it leaves me without much of an argument. But as I said, it's an experiential thing. I've experienced it. You presumably have not. What can I say?
Well, that's nice. And here I was thinking we'd be able to talk like adults here.:idunno:
Something must deserve respect in itself if we are to respect anything. If you ask me why you should respect kings and I say "because they embody tradition," you may ask why you should respect tradition. If I say you should respect tradition because it is the source of collective identity for a nation, you may ask why you should respect a nation's identity. And so on
ad infinitum. That's why I'm not aware of any way to settle this argument on rational grounds unless we start sharing respect of
something that could lead us to respect of the king. And I can't think of anything that fulfills that role between you and me, not even God.
Non-sequitar: we're not talking about the rational steps taken by the human mind, we're talking about a rather stupendous claim made by you that seems to have no basis whatsoever outside your own bias.
And my experience of the divine polyphony, the dance, something I can't give you or expect to convince you with, though I doubt you can advance a compelling argument against it. But see above.
A democratically-elected counterpart does not believe he or she is endowed by divine right to rule.
Given the notion of the will of the people as the sole and complete source of legitimate power, he has something worse. Why is it worse? Because kings, at least in the medieval Western tradition, were considered not only to reign by divine right, but to have divine duties that went with that. The king was subject to the natural law and to the divine law, and he believed that he would have to make account in the Day of Judgment for any misgovernment of his people. Moreover, the king was conceived primarily not as a legislator of a higher(public) law but as an enforcer and discoverer of the same(private) law that bound everyone else, despite his privileged place within it. Democracy, in other words, has all of the entitlement with none of the restraints.
A head of state chosen by the people does not entertain the notion that they are descended from a bloodline preserved by the almighty--and by his or her ancestors--to maintain a pure, insular genetic stream that cannot be corrupted by common blood.
And does not thus have the weight of tradition and duty and fear of God to bind him to rule rightly. No thanks.
A democratic leader is forced to be exposed to the people.
Oh, one aside: can I conclude from all this that you do support democracy after all?
Now to your point: Could you elaborate? Does this mean you think Barack Obama is better informed about the problems really affecting his people than say, Queen Elizabeth, and is dedicated or has an incentive to be dedicated to doing something about it?
There are none of the trappings of the throne that have led so many monarchs to abuse their power because of the fairy tales they've been told since a young age.
I highly doubt that monarchs who abuse their power do so
because they believe they have been entrusted with a divine fief to govern on the Lord's behalf.
Simply put, a king can do--and they have done--more damage,
Not really, no. The economic, religious and social collapse of Europe today is part and parcel of the democratic order. Monarchs never got society even close to this level of decay, at least not since the fall of the Roman Empire.
Among other reasons? Because they fear the judgment of God.
Just got a fresh pair yesterday, though I prefer contacts. And the point stands, your attempt at a dodge not withstanding.
More a pack of unfounded insults than a point.
Here's an article, for instance, about how His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is in better touch with the public than the ministers a lot of the time.
If you want to fawn over a pack of Germanic buck-toothed grotesques, knock yourself out.
Do you have anything to add besides contempt and insults?
Rightfully, hmmm. At the expense of who and what?
Sounds like you're asking me to criticize monarchy. That's your job, if memory serves. But I'd say it's at the expense of politicians, governments, irreligion, secularism, and spurious equality.
How far would you say their "rights" extend today?
Each to a different extent depending on the particular constitution and traditions of their particular monarchies. Pick one and I'll give a more exact answer.
How far would you allow them to make their "claims" these days?
As far as those claims are legitimate. You will probably complain that this is a non-answer, but it's the best I can do absent the facts of a particular case.
Why is some schlub holding on to his sinecure and a tradition of stupid hats "entitled" to anything today?
For the last time: it was the property of his ancestors and passed to him in due course. And why all this focus on "today?" Has the fundamental nature of good government or property rights changed recently?
Divine order: See above for the dangers posed by this delusion.
See above for my answers on why the alternative is worse. But of course I don't expect you to value divine order, being an atheist. You must confess, though, that by the believer it must be reckoned as a good.
Tradition: All well and good, but the times do a-change.
I'd wager you have no real respect for tradition at all. Would I win?
National identity: A nice idea, but a monarch's certainly not necessary for it.
I didn't say he is. I said he
embodies it.
"Legitimate" authority: Based on what?
Property.
Explain what constitutes "illegitimate" authority.
In the strictest sense, there is no such thing, as illegitimate authority is no authority at all. In a looser sense, illegitimate authority would be that founded on theft, where one substitutes one authority for another without just cause.
Kingship: Well
duh. 
Yes, it's obvious, but I think it's as valid a reason as the others.
