zlacker

I do not approve of concepts like a ruling family, and favor mobility- but I have slowly come to appreciate the value of being groomed for a responsibility your entire life. I am not sure such dedicated & devout public servants come about naturally.

>>ip26+(OP)
You don't choose the royal life, the royal life chooses you.

>>ip26+(OP)
I think with that wording it's easy to slip into thinking that a person's lineage has anything to do with their suitability to be educated for a specific role or how well they may perform in that role.

Nothing arises "naturally"; It's the education and access to vast support resources that creates exceptional people, and if you want more of those, you should want to ensure that the greatest number of people have access to enough resources that anyone can have a chance to make the most of their inborn advantages (whatever they may be) regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

>>ip26+(OP)
Anyone who would seek out a monarchy would almost certainly be a sociopath. That's why it must be a birthright.

>>ip26+(OP)
In the context of the modern British crown, the "ruling" is far more ceremonial than substantive. Similar for most other surviving European royal families.

>>sph+I3
You don't choose the peasant life, the peasant life chooses you.

>>bell-c+q7
I had the impression royality is a bigger deal in the UK than in the rest of the world.

>>sph+I3
You can marry in, which amounts to choosing the royal life. (Maybe not you specifically, but people have married in)

>>k__+pa
“The rest of the world” is casting pretty wide net. Was the Queen a more hands-on monarch than Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud?

>>spoonj+U5
There is a third way, it could be decided by chance.

>>bell-c+q7
The idea that the UK monarchy is largely ceremonial and just a boon for tourism is an incredibly prevalent idea but apparently just good PR. We've learned the monarchy has extensively interfered with the UK's parliament legislative process and done so covertly:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

>>confid+0m
Sortition would be a better approach - elect a list of people who are all "good enough" and then choose randomly from them.

Constitutional monarchs do have their uses; it's good that someone can fire the head of government, especially if the people can invest in the head of state instead.

The US should have one picked from the top 10 Spotify chart. Even if half of them are Canadian.

>>confid+0m
I don't know why random selection is considered the gold standard for jury, yet most peoples look at you like you're some kind of deranged fool if you seriously propose "randomocracy" as a form of governance.

>>foldr+yk
Right.

I meant, in constitutional monarchies.

>>pedroc+Hq
covert lobbying is modus operandi of any democracy. whenever you write to somebody you elected, you're covertly influencing the legislative process...

>>k__+pa
Technically the monarch has the power to veto laws that they disagree with instead of signing them in the UK, but in practice that hasn't happened since the 18th century.