I find it outrageous that a scholar of isolated_freak's caliber should defend and promote as right the idea of absolute monarchy in today's world. I am inclined to think that there may be some personal interests involved. In simplest terms, I think it is a fundamentally flawed notion that a son of a ruler must be automatically entitled to inherit the power to rule. To me, there can be no defense to it, period. I think that the best that today's world can offer a monarch is an appropriate place (such as, figurehead) within a democratic system on the grounds of tradition. So it is imperative that any move by a monarch to seek absolute authority is bound to fail. I think that the popular support that King Gyanendra currently appears to have garnered in Nepal is nothing but a spontaneous and ephemeral burst of relief after years of violence and extortion by the Maoists and the Army, and rampant corruption in all political quarters. Eventually, Nepal is going to have to walk the same path forward again. There will be the Maoists again. The only way out will be to find a solution forward, not go backward like what has just happened because it only delays the effective institutionalization and stability of democracy. Just my two cents. No offense intended.