>>560
>I think it depends on the country.
That is true, I suppose. In the case of countries like Sweden or the UK, the monarchy is there, it need only be perhaps freed from the chains of excessive Parliamentarian government and this can be achieved through the present legal channels. But in the case of countries like those in the Middle East and Latin America, the volatile and unstable nature of the regions makes such an approach impossible. A monarchist revival movement would only gain support in a place like Lebanon, Iran or Syria if it could somehow translate monarchism into an ideological language that speaks to the core values of groups like the nationalists, socialists and religious fundamentalists whose values dominate the mainstream political discourse.
>Regardless though, if there is not a large, ideological component of royalists in the populace, the health of the monarchy in the long-run will be greatly diminished.
While I think there is definitely a need for an ideological component, that is a group of people who can intellectually defend the legitimacy of the monarchy against its opponents, I don't think this component need be large. The populace need not be all gung-ho and demand a monarchy for the monarchy to return, it need only be of the state of mind where it is willing to simply acquiesce. This is what separates monarchy I think from populist systems. Populist systems thrive on the people's passions and discontent, while monarchy relies on the population's sense of humility and willingness to accept rightful authority regardless of whether or not they personally like the king/queen as a person. The majority of the population need only be convinced of the justness of the monarch's claim to power, they need not choose him out of a personal sense of love or fondness, although a good monarch would cultivate such feelings for his own long-term benefit.