Criticism of monarchy

Criticism of monarchy has occurred since early medieval times. It can be targeted against the general form of government, monarchy, or more specifically, to particular monarchical governments as controlled by hereditary royal families. In some cases, this criticism, also known as anti-monarchism, can be curtailed by legal restrictions and be considered criminal speech, as in lèse-majesté.

Monarchies in Europe and their underlying concepts, such as the Divine Right of Kings, became increasingly criticized during the Age of Enlightenment, which notably paved the way to the French Revolution and the proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy in France. Earlier, the American Revolution saw the Patriots suppress the Loyalists and expelled all royal officials.

In contemporary times, monarchies are present in the world in many forms with different degrees of royal power and involvement in civil affairs:

The twentieth century, beginning with the 1917 February Revolution in Russia and accelerated by two world wars, saw many European countries replace their monarchies with republics, while others replaced their absolute monarchies with constitutional monarchies. Reverse movements have also occurred, with brief returns of the monarchy in France under the Bourbon Restoration, the July Monarchy, and the Second French Empire, the Stuarts after the English Civil War and the Bourbons in Spain after the Franco dictatorship.

Aristotle taught that monarchy was only suitable for populations incapable of governing themselves, and believed that power ought to be shared within populations generally made up of equals. He also felt that it was easier to corrupt one individual than a multitude. Aristotle further criticized monarchies for tending to become hereditary, which to him carried the undue risk of conferring power on someone incapable and bringing ruin to the nation.

During the Middle Ages, the Dominican Bartholomew of Lucca, "presented republican government as the only suitable alternative for a virtuous people and identified monarchy with tyranny or despotism." Another medieval republican thinker was Marsilius of Padua who, influenced by Aristotle, advocated rule by the majority, and argued that "a ruler who is elected is greatly to be preferred to rulers who are hereditary."

During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli, while largely viewed as an advisor of absolute rulers due to his widely read work The Prince, personally preferred republics and considered them to be superior to monarchies in several ways, including their ability to expand, and their ability to enjoy freedom from oppression.

During the reign of Henry VIII, Thomas Starkey's Dialogue between Cardinal Pole and Thomas Lupset, advocated that England embrace a republican form of government, asking "What is more repugnant to nature than a whole nation to be governed by the will of a Prince?" He argued that a community had the authority to both raise and depose its rulers through elections, writing that "this is in man's power, to elect and choose him that is both wise and just and make him a prince and him that is a tyrant so to depose." Starkey intended to present his work to the king, but never did so, and it was not published until the nineteenth century.