Cite, please?
Plus, the most important factor to assess genetic diversity is your own parents. Then your grandparents. Once you start going back to g-g-g grandparents, their influence on your genetic diversity gets pretty remote.
The merit in this ancestor was her religion. The Dowager Electress Sophia was named by the British Pparliament as the next heir after Queen Anne because she was Protestant. Parliament skipped over a large number of others because they were Catholic.
I think you are confused. You seem to think I oppose the monarchy based on its performance.
The hereditary monarchy should be abolished because it is repugnant to humanist and liberal values, a relic of a time when some men were God’s chosen rulers and others were worth less than the dirt on their boots. This is pretty true if the monarchy is ceremonial only, and very very very true if the monarchy has any real power or influence.
Then have a prime minister and a president who are not the same person.
And if your Governor General was appointed through some democratic mean where they are beholden to the people (other than the one person who happens to be rIgHtFuL hEiR tO tHe HoUsE oF wInDsOr because we live in Game of Thrones) the sky would fall because…
You’re assuming Britain never ends up with a Monarch with the temperament of a Trump. Sure, that’s all well and good if you keep rolling Queen Elizabeths on the genetic lottery. Enjoy some King Andrews rolling up at the same time that you get a Boris Johnson and tell me again how great the monarchy is.
Oh, so close!
If they skipped over a bunch of people, then they were working from some kind of list, yes? A list of whom?
A list of descendants from that highly successful at killing ancestor I mentioned.
Most of us don’t get our job and our massive estates and castles handed to us by the government by virtue of our descent from an ancestor who was especially successful at killing.
Not to dig to deep into this yet again, as I don’t really care that much, but if you watched that video I linked to that was more or less the final determination on Charles. Charles III (and his siblings) specifically are in fact rather inbred based purely on his parents. By that criterion his mother Queen Elizabeth was not particularly inbred at all, his father Philip was a bit. But together they were double second and third-cousins through multiple lines - his consanguinity coefficient is actually higher than if his parents had just been normal first cousins.
So if one were to sneeringly refer to Charles III as an inbred twit, the second part would be a value judgement, the first an arguably factual statement 
. This applies only to Charles (and his siblings), not his mother or his children (a little bit to his father, who was inbred to almost, but not quite the equivalent of the product of a first cousin marriage).
Utter balderdash. Or to be more precise, it is the parliamentary system that is (very arguably, but I would tend to agree) the saving grace here. Not the worthless hereditary office.
I don’t necessarily disagree. The question becomes how to choose the president. There are strengths and weaknesses both to having them elected and having them appointed. This is just reflective of the fact that democracy is an imperfect system of government, but it’s the best we have, as Churchill stated much more eloquently. If one accepts the idea that the president should be appointed by a democratically elected prime minister, and should have very limited but in some circumstances very important powers, then that is exactly what a Governor General is in Commonwealth countries that have constitutional monarchies.
Election by democratic means is not the universal answer to every office, just like referendums are not the universal answer to all public policy decisions. The founders of America were a well-educated elite who were skeptical of leaving major institutions of democracy to the ignorant riff-raff – a prescience that we’re seeing being proven today, though not for exactly the reasons they foresaw – but unfortunately the system they created and the guardrails they thought they had established (e.g. electoral college) failed to prevent Trump #45, an attempted insurrection, and a very likely Trump #47 that may last a lot longer than four years after he pardons himself of all criminal liability and imprisons his enemies. Democracy is a fragile institution that requires delicate power balances and an informed public that is actually capable of governing themselves.
Note that although the royal family is indisputable wealthy and Charles owns much valuable property, some of the most iconic properties are not actually his personal or family property to do with as he pleases, but are considered to be owned by the reigning monarch “in right of the Crown”. It’s somewhat roughly analogous to the right of the US president to live in the White House.
As I previously said, in Commonwealth countries the GG is not hereditary, nor is it permanent. In Canada the GG serves a nominal term of five years. It’s simply an office that allows a constitutional monarchy to provide its intended safeguards.
In Britain, the hereditary nature of the monarchy exists due to an obviously very long history. The practical function of the monarchy in the Westminster parliamentary system is indisputable, so that if it vanished it would have to be replaced by something equivalent. The existence of a hereditary royal family and all the pomp and circumstance surrounding it is a different matter. My own view on it is that long-standing historical traditions are a very important part of a nation’s culture and a fundamental part of its identity. At worst, they’re harmless. If you dismiss long-standing historical traditions as “worthless”, then you may as well also dismiss weddings and funerals as worthless. They certainly have no practical function. Ceremony is historically integral to civilization.
No one takes issue with the GG. That’s not the problem here. And if you prefer to appoint them, then fine. Again, not the problem.
The problem is with a hereditary monarch who rules by virtue of birth rather than by any means (appointment, election, etc) that is ultimately accountable to the public.
I would have assumed so, since you said you were a utilitarian. What you are saying here is the exact opposite of a utilitarian argument–it’s saying something is bad even if the results are good.
As I’ve said before, liberals are not generally utilitarian.
That’s because, as I pointed out, the results are good largely because Queen Elizabeth was a relatively unobjectionable monarch.
The system is shit regardless of the results Elizabeth happened to deliver, because that system could also have given us Nazi-sympathizing King Edward, for example.
And in general, allowing the very idea of nobility and royalty in a modern egalitarian society is harmful. I don’t find the concept repugnant because I think kings are ewy and gross, I think kings are harmful.
I find it shockingly easy to dispute 
.
Personally? I kinda do.
Even if we accept that general notion for the moment, I’d argue that nonetheless bad ceremony is not worth celebrating. Nobody needs to be sacrificing children to Ba’al Hammon and far less extremely nobody in this day and age should be letting a hereditary elite live high on the hog on public property just because of the family line they were born into (yes, yes they have their own money - then they can live on that as commoners).
ETA: I come off as quite fanatical on this, I realize. The truth is I truly don’t care all much about the royals and outside this context hardly ever even think about them. As political issues go, it is way, way, wayyyy down my list of concerns. But I admit I find the support for the vestiges of medieval hereditary privilege sorta appalling. Okay, there is a certain romanticism to it with all the pomp and pageantry. But it is in the end predicated on placing someone above others based on birth. Which while hardly uncommon as a practical issue, is not something I feel modern democratic society should be encouraging and celebrating.
Is it? Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was mother of the monarch. Camilla is not so it it really the same status?
Wait, which of Sophia of Hanover’s ancestors were especially successful at killing? James VI / I ? Sophia’s great-great-great-great-grandfather Henry VII? William the Conqueror?
At some point, the number of centuries from the ancestor whose violent actions created the privilege makes your claim, at best, indirect.
It’s really not conceptually different from the fact that our presidents are always chosen from the members of a certain privileged subgroup of Americans rather than all citizens.
Ah yes, who can forget when the Americans coronated Lord Protector Obama, Third of his Name?
Then maybe we should stop recognizing their claim to rule England?
Obama is black, which was a first for the US, but his education and social background (and his mother’s family) are squarely in line with previous presidents.
Sophia of Hanover has a few thousand descendants, of whom a few dozen are actively connected to the British royals.
America has a much larger and more nebulous group of the privileged—millions—but it is nevertheless true that we select our leaders from a pool that is less diverse than the population as a whole.
Having selected the Windsors isn’t fair, but neither is the lottery, and we’re broadly okay with that. Somebody’s got to do it, and frankly I’m glad it’s not me.
That last British King who got his throne that was was Henry 7, in 1485- and Charles here is very very distantly related (the Tudors having died out) Not to mention H7 wasnt all that great a warrior personally. Pretty much everyone today is alive due to one of their ancestors being good in battle. I mean my Dad fought in WW2 and my Great Grandfather on the Union side in the Civil war- not to mention the Ukrainian side of the family which has more of less been involved in war since war was invented.
So, you owe your life, lands, etc to a much more ancestor being good in war. Otherwise that ancestor would have died, and you wouldn’t be posting here.
Thus- ipso facto- your claim is bogus.
Harry Truman was the son of a farmer. He went to Spalding’s Commercial College, a Kansas City business school. He worked in the mailroom , as a timekeeper, and as a haberdasher. At best- middle class background, maybe even working class. Then there’s Lincoln, and several other early presidents.
Thus, your claim in not valid.
I know the British are known for understatement, but this is ridiculous. Your “pool” consists of one dude who happens to be the True Heir to the Throne. Comparing the presidency to that is just ludicrous.
In The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities, Matthew White argues that civil wars in monarchies tend to be less bloody than civil wars in republics.
In a monarchy, there are a limited number of people you need to murder before your preferred candidate inherits the throne. In a republic, where every member of the opposition party is a potential leader of that party, you have to kill a lot more people in order to get your way.
And that, ultimately, is why in the past so many people preferred monarchies - because they were willing to accept a mediocre ruler if it meant an orderly, peaceful succession when he died. It’s one reason why the Roman Republic fell.
In terms of “political” status, yes. She would still be called “queen,” but other than that, she’s pretty much just another Royal. I doubt that she would “officially” be called Her Majesty the Queen Mother, the way the previous one was, and primarily for the reason you pointed out (and Her Majesty the Queen Stepmother doesn’t have quite the same ring to it).
And I thought that “Queen Mother” was to distinguish Queen Elizabeth from Queen Elizabeth.