The abolition or absence of a particular exclusivist institution or practise does not mean that the social system in question has become or is neutral and inclusive, even not in the field which used to be pervaded by that exclusivism. There may be many exclusivist institutions or practises left which result in the same degree or in an even greater degree of inequality than in a system which still displays the particular form of exclusivity or exclusion. But an entirely neutral-inclusive, social system will be free from all exclusivist institutions and practises, and any abolition of a remaining exclusivism will thus contribute towards the establishment of neutral-inclusivity. Altho exclusivist institutions and practises may themselves be the result of a historical development, the perpetuation of these exclusivisms is something present-day people are responsible for. And whereas individual people have the extrinsic right to perpetuate exclusivist systems which only concern themselves, the state does not have the right to perpetuate such systems, particularly not when they involve everyone and particularly not when they comprise several exclusivisms at once.

One exclusivist state institution, remnant of medieval feudalism, is the monarchical system. Its alternative, a republic, is a nonmonarchy which need not per se be less exclusivistic in every respect. Yet, as a monarchy a polity is exclusivistic and as a republic (a 'res publica', that is, a 'public thing' or 'commonwealth') it is not. While republics can be totally nondiscriminatory, in monarchical systems the discriminatory nature is inherent. It could be said that republic stands to monarchy as coherence stands to incoherence. Only a coherent theory can reveal the truth --a set of true propositions must be coherent--, but a particular coherent theory may reveal less of the truth than a particular incoherent theory. Similarly, the best polity is a republic --an inclusive and egalitarian polity can solely be republican--, but a particular (type of) republic could, on the whole, be worse than a particular (type of) monarchy. Monarchical fanaticists often try to exploit this by pointing at certain republican systems or countries and by calling attention to all their defects, not realizing that such reasoning is as preposterous as that of someone arguing in favor of incoherence, because there do exist coherent theories which contain more falsehoods than other, incoherent ones. If such an argument proves anything at all, it is that the one type of republic is a better one than the other type of republic.

What the minions of monarchism tend to conveniently forget is that the essential difference between a kingdom, empire, principality or other sort of monarchy and a republic is that in the former kind of political system the office of chief of state and possibly certain other state positions are by law reserved for the members of one chosen family or narrow, exclusive circle of families, while this is not (necessarily) the case in a republic. This inequality before or in the law is often further informally supplemented by the monarch's own nepotism or 'their' government's familial exclusivism. (Not to mention the favors for the cronies of the Crown.) Thus state offices or positions in a country with royal apartheid are not open to all but entirely or partially based on biological-materialist relationship rather than on personal capacity or merit.

(A perfect illustration of the analogy between monarchy and incoherence is that also theorists of 'justice' and so-called 'democratic' politicians in monarchist countries will say that 'state positions and offices should be open to all', while at the same time collaborating with, if not defending, the monarchical order. Another illustration is that ethical theorists who have attacked utilitarianism for its not taking justice into account, have --at least in the past-- never attacked the unalloyed utilitarian arguments used to 'justify' the same monarchical order. It seems, again, that it is ultimately ideology which determines what the ethical or democratic theorist will attack or defend, and that 'er theory is usually only to provide 'im with extra, more explicit reasons for a position 'e has already taken.)

Monarchism is a plural exclusivism. It allows people to indulge in, or even requires them to support, all or most of the following manifestations of exclusivity and exclusion:

• generative familial exclusivism (the monarch has become head of state not because of 'er personal capacities or merits but by virtue of 'er ancestry; rather than being made on the basis of skin color, the irrelevant distinction is made on the basis of a much narrower criterion: that of blood color or 'purity')
• familial exclusivism, both physical and nonphysical (members of the family of the monarch have certain privileges solely on the basis of their belonging to this family; the monarch and possibly all members of 'er family do not have to pay taxes on their more or less excessive state and other incomes, on their property, for example, when aquired by inheritance, and on their business transactions, altho they usually belong to the richest families in the country)
• sexual exclusivism (royal heir lines are sexist: while the basic rule is that the first child will succeed the reigning monarch, daughters follow in line behind sons even when older; while the wife of a king becomes a so-called 'queen', the husband of a reigning queen is not called "king")
• marriage-centered exclusivism (children of the monarch born out of wedlock do not have the same legal right as those born in wedlock: consanguinity turns out to be a necessary but not a sufficient criterion)
• title-based exclusivism, both hereditary and nonhereditary (while other citizens are called by their forenames and/or surnames, the members of the monarch's family are tricked up with officially sanctioned exclusive titles; it is a custom that the monarch bestows other fancy titles upon members of the higher classes of society leaving the lower classes with no or inferior titles; these titles may be only or largely given out on the basis of personal connections and ideological devotion, rather than desert)
• class-based exclusivism (the 'royal', 'imperial' or otherwise chosen family or group of families belong historically to the upper-class or the wealthy, propertied class of society; members of other classes have no chance to ever represent the whole society at the state's upper level)
• ethnical or racial exclusivism (the chosen family belongs to one particular ethnic group or race; people of other descent or with another skin color have no chance to ever represent the whole society at the state's upper level)
• ideological, that is, religious, theocentrist or monotheist exclusivism (the denominational convictions of the monarch, or even of a member of 'er family, are not 'er private business : 'e is symbolic head of the state religion or symbolizes the country's real or feigned belief in the main dogmas of the creed which used to be the state religion; a particular religion, monotheism in general or religion in general thus enjoys an exclusive status; the intimate connection between monarchy and religion becomes very conspicuous when a word such as king is employed both for the doxastic supreme being called "God" and for a worldly head of state: in the sense of leader of our community of believers 'God' is a 'King' and the 'King' is (a) 'God')

If the monarchy is 'merely' a symbol, it is indeed the supreme symbol of exclusivism!

Some of the forms of exclusivism monarchists are involved in may be found in certain republican systems as well, but none of these exclusivisms is inherent in the republican system as such. Many republics, for instance, yield or yielded to classism, ethnocentrism and/or state religionism too, but other republics do or did without these forms of exclusivism (and all of them should). Furthermore, it has to be noted that the exclusivisms which characterize monarchical systems are liable to be found throughout the whole society in question. The monarchy may have originally come into being by virtue of an exclusivist attitude, having become an established institution it perpetuates this very attitude.

It goes without saying that the monarchist ideology is entirely incompatible with the principles of the DNI. Whether or not it is claimed to be 'only symbolical' (which it never is), the authoritarian and exclusivist state system it advocates offends first of all against (the spirit of) the right to personhood and the norm of inclusivity. But the monarchist tradition is not less incompatible with the norm of neutrality, particularly the subnorms of interpersonal equality and nanhonore. The personality cult in which a monarch and 'er family are worshiped and idolized is a gross violation of the latter subnorm (a violation which --it must be added-- can be found in some republics as well with respect to the president and 'er family). Moreover, such a cult is inimical to truth, since monarchies are notorious for hushing up royal affairs which democratically elected politicians would never have been allowed to survive. Neither truth nor relevance have ever been served by the obsequiousness or smarminess of subjects loyal to the monarchist cause.

The basic elements of monarchism could theoretically be made to agree with the right to personhood, if the followers of the family or families in question maintained them on private terms and did not try to get the state involved in their familial, sexual, marital, title-based, class-based, ethnical and ideological exclusivisms. So long as monarchists do manage or endeavor to impose their obnoxious, parasitic scheme on the whole of society nevertheless, they must be met with recusancy -- to say the least.