Ambitious and talented Brits without a class pedigree and connections commonly find that their best career opportunities are out of country, especially in the egalitarian US. Many of our scientific and technical breakthroughs thus have a large contribution from Britain and from British expatriates.
Moreover, the House of Windsor has a sorry record when British and US national interests are taken into account. If Edward had been king during WW II instead of being forced out by the politicians and security services due to his affair with Wallis Simpson, a British surrender or negotiated peace with Hitler would have been almost certain.
Similarly, the British monarchy's investments overseas have often led to the compromise or weakening of British and US interests. Soviet, Chinese, and Third World leaders learned that menacing or boosting the royal family's money was a way to influence British national policy.
Also, Queen Elizabeth has generally aligned with the Tory "wets" (the British version of RINOs) and did not at all like Margaret Thatcher or her policies. The smarmy and snakey Tony Blair was her preferred prime minister. Yuk!
It is up to Brits as to whether they want to keep their monarchy and class system. That does not require me though to gush over the birth of a British royal.
Gushing isn’t required. Neither is trashing of, as I said, one of the last historical remnants of Western civ.
And really, what it boils down to is the birth of an innocent baby. Too bad that some hearts are so hard they can’t spare a word of good wishes for the child.
I am not interested in arguing for the house of Windsor. I am arguing for monarchy in general. The best king Britain ever had was Charles ii, who resisted the encroachments of a Whig parliament with designs upon the rights of the poor. That has always been the job of kings, and Charles Stuart ii, smeared as absolute monarch (by a Whig plutocracy dying to do exactly that) did a magnificent job and in many quiet ways rescued the British constitution and the rights of the lowborn.
Furthermore the concept of social immobility in which there’s no possibilityof advancement for the lowborn, is at odds with history. People didn’t come to America for freedom as a concept; most came to get rich quick in a land with no rules, or else to skip out on their debts.