>>7641
No.
In some monarchies, it's simply the case that the monarchy is predominately wealthy and owns the critical wealth (like the oil rich monarchies). If we're aiming for a full & simple monarchy, then without a doubt, people should get comfortable with the idea of the monarchy having such a portion of the state budget and wealth at his disposal. & those monarchies usually provide for the public.
Probably the most grievous examples I can think of are the Shah of Iran or Bokassa's coronation & tbh that isn't enough altogether to make me say they should have been overthrown for that reason.
Now constitutional monarchies today like the UK are making such a huge grievance over a tiny portion of the budget and the coronation, that a man like Charles III should have all that wealth and these titles by right of birth -- that alone is enough for the full fledged republicans to cry tyranny, even over a small consumption tax.
If we allow monarchies to tax as much as our contemporary democracies, it should be more than enough even though people would call it the greatest tyranny because a monarch is doing it and not the pretense of the People doing it.
Though even the rulers who have been historically deemed tyrants were more conscious about how much they taxed their subjects.
Emperor Tiberius, for example, reprimanded his governor of Egypt for taxing too much. Tiberius said,
>I would have my sheep sheared, not flayed.
Anyways.
>Is it right to remove him from office in hopes of another, better monarch taking his place?
You hope, but that's not guaranteed. It could be the end of the Monarchy (in that case, don't count on a restoration) or a usurper who is even worse.
If you browsed the board long enough, frankly said that is my position (& it is the fringe position, non-resistance and the absolute monarchist stance was routinely mocked well after the 1700s).
That said, it's even more peculiar to me how constitutional monarchists are such staunch legitimatists well after a monarchy is overthrown and expect a restoration centuries afterwards, but for most of them the question of deposing a monarch is easy-pudding. -- That contrast between their staunch legitimatism & easy-going regicide *cough* tyrannicide calls doesn't have virtue in my book... loyalism for them (esp. with saintly martyr kings) is amplified
after a monarch is overthrown, but the virtue of loyalism and keeping a tight belt through good and bad times should be there when the regime is alive. The absolutist stance is more sensible imo b/c there's dogged loyalism when the regime is still around, and then it is inevitably accepted once a regime is overthrown decades later and it's apparent they aren't coming back.
Restorationism after 100+ years, no question about it -- is time to move on and consider new blood and new leadership.