Societies often go from monarchy to chaos to totalitarianism, Curzon notes:
It should be clear to regular readers, from my posts on Nepal, Georgia, and America, that I am a constitutional monarchist. I believe that a constitutional monarch, often weilding great theoretical power or constitutionally designated as a national symbol, can play a great role in stabilizing a nation during difficult times. Or as conservative journalist Peter Hitchens once said:
I think [a monarch] is an essential part of a balanced constitution in much the same way that the king is an essential part of the game of chess. He doesn’t actually do very much, but by occupying his square, he prevents others from occupying it. I think the history of most countries… which haven’t had monarchies or which have gotten rid of monarchies, suggest that once they’ve gone and politicians start seeking the kind of loyalty and love which monarchs enjoy, you get very serious political problems, and often you get an end to democracy.That may sound farfetched to an ahistorical citizen of the 21st century. Monarchy today is viewed by many as a backwards entitlement regime, giving benefits to undeserving aristocrats at the expense of hardworking, ordinary people, with no basis other than outdated history. But history shows that Peter is right. The abolition of a nation’s monarchy is regularly followed by a distinct pattern, a steady progression from a politically stable monarchy, followed by a quasi-democratic chaos, consolidated only through brutal totalitarianism. This slow pattern, typically taking 6-12 years, has been startingly reliable in a number of countries regardless of region over the past two centuries.
He cites France, Russia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia as examples.