Previous posts in this discussion:
PostToday's "Validos": Monarchy and Corruption (Anthony J Candil, USA, 09/23/22 3:59 am)
I forgot to mention in yesterday's post that monarchies in the 21st century, as always, bring even more corruption to their societies.
The way they bestow titles and privileges (dukedoms, count entitlements, marquisates, peers, and equivalents, knighthoods, and so forth) are no different from the practice of favoritism from the 17th century (the infamous "validos" in Spain) and are given for a reason. Kings surround themselves with a court of advisors and influencers, who, in exchange, obtain privileges and sustain the monarchs.
Today's "validos" are businessmen, judges, politicians, anyone who can provide support and "loyalty" to the monarch. Of course, this loyalty usually entails a fee that goes to the monarch's off-shore banks.
This happens within republics as well, but at least in a republic we can replace the head of state when it is required. A monarch lasts forever, in principle.
JE comments: "Valido" in this context translates as "favorite," but it literally means a (male) person of worth (from the verb valer). The notion of "favorite" itself, when used as a noun to refer to a person, implies all sorts of shenanigans.
Anthony Candil inspires a question: are monarchies more corrupt by nature? The national rankings (WAISers know I'm addicted to national rankings) do not support this thesis. Among the least corrupt nations we have the "developed" constitutional monarchies of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Conversely, there are no monarchies among the top 10 or even 20 Usual Corrupt Suspects.
Click and reflect: