Are there any heredity monarchist supporters here?

[bruce1937]

With all the royal crap that we have been subjected to lately, I began to wonder what type of people would support a hereditary monarchy, which of course led me to wonder if any of our rationalist free thinkers support this system, and if so why?

[rosiemacduck]

I'm probably going to be the only one here, but I have to admit that I like that you can have a peek into history in real time by observing things royal. It is not a political or nationalistic thing, simply a pervy thing. The same way that I like period movies, and Jane Austen novels.

[Darwinsbulldog]

I support the Queen, that is, I believe she should have income support so that she can find a new job. One that does not involve "Defender-of-imaginary-friends".

[EvilDRMike]

Certainly not me. As much as I'm quite anti-violence I do have some empathy towards the French and Russian approach to the retirement of those that think god has imbued the with a divine right to a free ride in life and often of the rough shod variety over everyone else.

EDM

[meridian]

I'll stick my neck out and say that I'm a supporter of the monarchy and of random heriditary selection to choose the next monarch. Or perhaps his son, if Ol Big Ears carks it before he gets a turn on the throne.

I like the idea of a notional apolitical head of state (even if they were closet Nazis during WWII) and the convention of a Govenor General here in the colonies, and the romance and pointless pageantry of royalty.

[owheelj]

@Meridian - but do you think there are things governments could spend money on that would have a greater benefit to the societies they are governing, despite the appeal of pointless pageantry?

Of course my opposition is based on philosophical moral grounds. Even if royalty received no public money, I think the notion that a particular hereditary line be regarded as special, and be given some kind of formal position by a government is absurd and obscene. People should be treated equally, or on their individual merit.

[AustralAlien]

Nope, I think that we should have an elected head of state. That is both for Australia and the United Kingdom. My reasons aren't just about the free ride royals get, it ties in with aspiration. I firmly believe in equality of opportunity, and how can we achieve that if the head-of-state is unelected?

[Xeno]

Start a poll, Bruce.

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by AustralAlien

Nope, I think that we should have an elected head of state. That is both for Australia and the United Kingdom. My reasons aren't just about the free ride royals get, it ties in with aspiration. I firmly believe in equality of opportunity, and how can we achieve that if the head-of-state is unelected?

We can easily have equality of opportunity without having an elected head of state. I strongly support a republic model where the head of state is appointed by parliament, similar to the model we have now. Unless we were going to completely change our system of government, it's obviously better to have an appointed head of state than an elected partisan one. What do you imagine the head of state would do, that justifies electing them?

[AisforAtheist]

Originally Posted by owheelj

the notion that a particular hereditary line be regarded as

I'm moderately confident about the unbroken line of mitochondrial DNA stretching as far back as the last time the babies got mixed up by the wet nurse. But I'm pretty sure, at least judging by the phenotypic evidence of the current generation, that the royal Y chromosomes could have come from just about any Pom dick for Harry.