> See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"? My next sentence explains why: > monarchies with at lea

> See, you're moving the goalposts already. Why would constitutional monarchies not qualify as "real"? My next sentence explains why: > monarchies with at least lots of de jure, usually also de facto monarch power Having an unelected head of state with lots of power isn't a "real" democracy, in my book. Places where the monarch could appoint a government and dissolve parliament at will, directly own colonies for personal exploitation, etc. were hardly "really" democratic, which excludes more than half your list (Spain depending on time of year, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands,, UK, and I can't be bothered to look but fairly sure also Norway, Sweden, Denmark). I already mentioned Switzerland, which wasn't a monarchy (at the federal level), but yes, was democratic. There's also San Marino.