English Monarchy Advantages

The monarchy isn’t as bad as you are claiming it to be. It’s better than the government that you would all want to run. The monarchy has been around for decades and these problems that you are pointing out are just a coincidence. If you think that you can make a government that has absolutely zero flukes in several decades, by all means, try it but if not, get off your high horse and stop ridiculing ours. Monarchy is the best government for the colonies because it is already established, everyone is already familiar with the rules, and because no matter what government you have the social order will still be thrown out of natural balance. The idea of monarchy has been around for hundreds of years. The English monarchy has been around for quite a while as well. My opinion is that for how long the monarchy
has been around, there hasn’t been as many hiccups as you may think. But, if you are right and all of these hiccups do exist, imagine how long it took to solve all the hiccups from the early stages of the government. If you switch your government you will have to go back to square one and start with the early stages which, I guarantee, will have oodles of more hiccups than the monarchy currently does. Everyone in your colony came from England.
They’re all familiar with the government and know the rules, advantages, and also the few disadvantages of the monarchy. If you were to switch all of these people’s governments on them you are guaranteed a slew of chaos. Nobody will understand or know any of the laws that you may as well be in a state of lawlessness. It would be easiest to stick with the monarchy because everyone already knows what is going on and there will be no adaptation necessary. If you take a step back and look at your vision as it is, a dream, and think logically you will realize that the monarchy is a very sound decision for government. If one of your main arguments against the monarchy is that Kings throw off the natural order of things, that is a little absurd as well. Anytime that you have a leader the natural balance is going to be thrown off. When you have a leader they are seen as more powerful than everyone else. That is why they are classified as a leader. If you plan to run a government without a leader that would be an eligible point, however I feel that your government will have a larger flaw than just offsetting the natural
balance. Another example of how most governments have the same flaws that you say the monarchy does is the idea of worshiping anyone other than God. No matter what specific type of leader you have they will be worshiped the same. People will do as they say and they will have the same amount of power as a king would and that is another reason why I feel your points are invalid. Also, the example about when Gideon was offered the position of king and he declined and explained how God is supposed to be the only person to rule over others is also a point that contradicts your ideas. You want a government that has a president who, in fact, rules over the nation, yet having a monarchy that has a king that also rules over a nation is a sin. A monarchy is the strongest option of government because it is already established, everyone is already familiar with it, and finally any government will upset the natural balance if you look at it closely enough. Another good way to look at things is that you see these flaws in the monarchy because you experienced it first hand. Any government looks good in paper, but they are all guaranteed to have some sort of flaws. My point is that no matter what government you choose, there will be flaws somewhere down the line and with a monarchy, you already know what the flaws are as opposed to creating a whole new government and having to patiently wait for a huge, unpredictable flaw that has never happened before.