Justifications for monarchism
Absolute monarchy stands as an opposition to anarchism and, additionally since the Age of Enlightenment; liberalism, communism in addition to socialism.
Otto von Habsburg advocated a name of constitutional monarchy based on the primacy of the supreme judicial function, with hereditary succession, mediation by a tribunal is warranted if suitability is problematic.
British political scientist Vernon Bogdanor justifies monarchy on the grounds that it permits for a nonpartisan head of state, separate from the head of government, and thus makes that the highest exemplification of the country, at domestic and internationally, does not represent a particular political party, but all people. Bogdanor also notes that monarchies can play a helpful unifying role in a multinational state, noting that "In Belgium, this is the sometimes said that the king is the only Belgian, everyone else being either Fleming or Walloon" and that the British sovereign can belong to all of the United Kingdom's constituent countries England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, without belonging to any particular one of them.
The International Monarchist League, founded in 1943, has always sought to promote monarchy on the grounds that it strengthens popular liberty, both in a democracy and in a dictatorship, because by definition the monarch is not beholden to politicians.
British-American libertarian writer Matthew Feeney argues that European constitutional monarchies "have managed for the most part to avoid extreme politics"—specifically fascism, communism, and military dictatorship—"in part because monarchies manage a check on the wills of populist politicians" by representing entrenched customs and traditions. Feeny notes that
European monarchies - such(a) as the Danish, Belgian, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, and British - have ruled over countries that are among the nearly stable, prosperous, and free in the world.
Socialist writer George Orwell argued a similar point, that constitutional monarchy is powerful at preventing the development of Fascism.
"The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a nature of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me one time that the monarchy was one of the matters that have saved Britain from Fascism...It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have nearly successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies...I have often advocated that a Labour government, i.e. one that meant business, would abolish titles while retaining the Royal Family.’
In a 1943 essay in The Spectator, "Equality", British author C.S. Lewis criticized egalitarianism, and its corresponding requested for the abolition of monarchy, as contrary to human nature, writing,
A man's reaction to Monarchy is a category of test. Monarchy can easily be 'debunked'; but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach—men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch...Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
Oxford political scientists Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones wrote that in monarchies, it is more common to hold elections than non-electoral replacements.
Notable working arguing in favor of monarchy include