Focus Visually On Iran

In a Monarchy the Crown Embodies the Nation

Hence the Monarch ( King or Queen) as the Living Embodiement of the Institution of the Monarchy in turn represents the Nation during his or her lifetime.

That is why all members of government, diplomatic corps act sybolically in the name of the Monarch and Not the People per se.

This is true whether one is living in an Absolute Monarchy or a Constitutional One because there is no distinction made between the representational incarnation of the Nation ( i.e: The Monarch) and the Monarch's subjects: The People.

As such it is seen that by Serving the King or Queen you actually serve the People and the Nation at Large.

However eversince the concept of "Democracy" became a practical necessity (in Britian since 1688 with the Bill of Rights, France and America only for the past 200 years) in the political life of modern nations the indisputable "symbolism" of the absolute reality of a Monarchical State had to be balanced with the sine qua non necessity for accountability of the governing body towards the people ( Nation) it is supposed to serve. That is what is called a System of "Checks and Balances" which is true whether one is living under a Democratic Republic or a Parliamentary Democracy which happens to be the case of all European Constitutional Monarchies to date ( but only since the last 150 years for most Europes Kingdoms except in the UK).

Crown Prince Reza on importance of "Checks and Balances" of future regime 

Unfortunatley we Iranians expected the Pahlavis to accomplish overnight What took more than two to three centuries to achieve in Europe.

Nader Naderpour: How Rennaissance inspired Iran's Constitutional Revolution

Democracy is not merely having a Constitution drafted on a piece of paper more than the leaders progressive mindsets it depends essentially one the COLLECTIVE behavior of the nation. Individuals in a society can be intelligent anywhere in the world but for democracy to implement itself enduringly that demands Team Work and the cooperation between individuals (intelligent or not) who compose a given nation.

If the Intelligentsia is not as mature as they claim to be which alas was the case for the generation which brought about the revolution of 1979, then democracy even on Paper cannot be achieved and will only lead to anarchy.

Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the '79 Revolution

That probably explains why Someone like our Fellow comrad (aka First Amendment) or Our 'crème de la crème' Ostad Moshiri were too trigger happy back in 1979:

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES: Bahram Moshiri Slams Pahlavi Era Gun Ban Policies

'BOOBOOLI, BOOBOOLI': Bahram Moshiri Mocks & insults Shah’s Executed Generals

to truly appreciate the social freedoms most Iranians enjoyed during the Shah's regime which could have been used by our so called Intelligentsia in order to prepare the ground for reform and democratic change / transition in our country:

Daryoush Homayoun: Freedom of Press During Pahlavi Era Vs. IRI Era

pictory: Iran's Industrial Progress-Pahlavi Era Promotional Film (1970's)

pictory: Promotional Film on Women during Pahlavi Era (1970's)

Instead of working towards creating the conditions which could lead to the necessary amendments of an imperfect Constitution which needed democratic reform:

Cyrus Amir-Mokri on Pros and Cons of 1906 Constitution

Folks like 1st Amendment and Ostad Bahrami, or Abbas Milani and other EMINENT Persians chose the road of Anarchy:

Revolutionaries hang Reza Shah's Bust at Paris Embassy (1979)

They were so obssessed with Cosmetic Changes that they ended up with a Far less Cosmetic result:

SATIRE: The Burqa Republic of Our IRANICAN Dreams ;0)

And ran away into exile like the rest of us miserable lot but allow themselves to Preach about "democracy" from their high horse. 

That's why I say it is preferable for nations to keep their Monarchy than get rid of it:

ROYAL RHINOPLASTY: Stephen Fry On The Imperfections of the Monarchy and Why It Should Be Preserved

Being a Monarch is not a frivolous passtime nor a luxurtious Privaledge it is first and foremost a Duty which is cofered by the Nation to the head of a given dynasty to represent it.

The man or woman who accepts that duty is honored by the Nation to represent them officially and the Coronation very much like a Wedding is a ceremonial ritual which sanctifies that bond.

Now like in a wedding a couple can divorce and that is what happended to us during the Revolution.

Nothing stops a nation and it's Royal Family from reconciliating again.

The British did that so did the Spaniards and many other Monarchies to date. Libya may very well be the next in line.

So Why Not Iran the nation where the very concepts of the Monarchy and Empire were born ?

I'd rather have the Son of a Former Monarch become a Constitutional King in my country than have a Megalomaniac President like Syria's Hafez Assad or Libya's Gaddafi ...

My Humble Opinion,

DK 

Recommended Watching:

ROYAL FORUM: Explaining the Concept of a Constitutional Monarchy to a Staunch Republican

Of Her (Britannic) Majesty's Government

Traditionally the states that are kingdoms refer to their govenments and their ministers and even (as is the case in Britain) to the opposition party's shadow government, as their majesty's government or their majesty's minister ... and so on. In Iran the formal terms were: Doulat_e Shaahanshaahi_e Iran.

Megalomaniac indeed!

Just like the Queen of England,  and her Majesty's ambassadors.

Of no Sullivans........

I think he is the ambassador to the US..........our own Ardeshir Khaan-e- golo bolbol.....anyway..........it's important to remember that from mid 70s Iran had no ambassador to the foreign countries........simply because they were called His Majesty's ambassadors..........Stupid, megalomaniac Shah...........