Monarchies are examples of organic society

Right at the end of Dateline London earlier today they discussed the proposed constitutional changes announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia, and one of the panellists (whose name I forget) compared the British monarchy with Middle Eastern monarchies.

This seemed to me an ignorant and fatuous comparison.

Although in the 19th century there was an attempt to codify and standardise the concept of monarchy, this was retrospective philosophising that went down an analytical cul de sac. 

The point to bear in mind is that every monarchy is unique.  Monarchies emerged from the specific legal, judicial, religious, cultural, administrative and military narratives that communities created over time to organise their societies.  In this respect monarchies are examples of organic society (as opposed to artificial and politically-designed republican systems of government).

Although there are external comparisons you can make, the English monarchy was different from the Scottish and Irish monarchies.  The monarchies of the British Isles were/are totally different from continental monarchies.  European monarchies are fundamentally different to African or Middle Eastern or Far Eastern monarchies.

That is why the issue of monarchy is so emotive.  Leaving aside the superficial gush, monarchies are integral to community identity - it cannot be otherwise given the nature in which a specific monarchy has emerged.  Therefore it is not possible to end a monarchy without society breaking down for a significant period of time (the only example that might be counter to this is Hawaii, but the ending of the Hawaiian monarchy was the result of an American-backed coup and prelude to American colonisation so even this evidence is very partial).