The succession has not been continuous through the same family, but, rather, shared within an ever-widening circle of families. Take the current Royals, for example. Strictly speaking, arent't they of the house of Mountbatten ( née von Battenberg)? And before that, the house of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha (or Wettin, as your list states). The male English line of Hannover (or Braunschweig-Lüneburg) died out with Queen Victoria's father. And even that is not really "English." It has been suggested that Richard III was the last native English monarch, having been succeeded by Welshmen, Scots, and Germans. The monarchs of England, since Bosworth Field, have been the highest paid family of Gastarbeiter in history.
So there is no strict continuity of rulers, although the Crown's property holdings do not change. It would not be entirely incorrect to view the English monarch as the semi-hereditary CEO of a corporation; every now and then the "Board of Directors" (Parliament and the aristocracy) changes CEOs, sometimes by force, sometimes by ballot. If people have no problem with a large privately-owned company passing from father to son, then they should have no problem with monarchy.
But, getting back to Arkle's point . . . we have a ruling class in the United States and it is just about as fluid as the ruling class in more traditional societies. The wealth is inherited and passed from hand to hand within the ethereal realm of what Paul Fussell calles the "Out of Sight Rich." The plum corporate positions are passed around through "networking," which -- as a word -- is not nearly as disreputable as nepotism, or favouritism, although there is no difference in fact. Every job search book or article on résumés will tell you it's not how good your credentials are ("What" you know) but how effectively you can network ("Who" you know).
This does not differ in any substantial way from hereditary aristocracy, although the perceived necessity to lie about it creates a certain dysfunction in society, with the rampant hypocrisy of "self-made men" of which Josiah Bounderby in Dickens' Hard Times is a good literary example. And, much more dangerous, we must pretend that the people we elect to high office are the best qualified, and that they -- in turn -- select the best qualified for membership in their government. And, after they are elected, we must maintain this fiction and we must earnestly believe that these exceptionally meritorious individuals will NOT continue to engage in nepotism and favouritism (from which they benefitted on their way to the top). So we are SHOCKED ! when it is revealed that foreign policy or immigration policy are influenced by consideration of what is good for those in power and their friends and family.
It is a reality of the human condition that we will want to be of benefit to our relatives and friends. Monarchy and aristocracy bring this relationship out into the open, where everyone can deal with it honestly. "Democracy", on the other hand, lies about this natural phenomenon and makes believe it does not exist. The suppression of a natural urge leads to a re-appearance of that urge in a mutated and unhealthy form, hence the societal neurosis.
So there is no strict continuity of rulers.....If people have no problem with a large privately-owned company passing from father to son, then they should have no problem with monarchy.
First, there was direct succession by supposed divine right
up to the point where there was no direct issue and then the
nearest noble with the most pressing claim was chosen,
or in the alternate way a usurper forced himself into power.
As I look at the list of Presidents of the USA, I see two Adams
two Harrison, two Roosevelt and two Bush, and of course
each of the two were related (roosevelts distantly), but not in
direct succession. There were also two Johnsons that didn't
appear to be directly related at all. This is hardly comparable
to the direct succession of monarchs. The disingenuous
comparison between a government leader and a privately
owned company president to justify your claim lacks logic.
Governments, if they feel it necessary, use lethal force to
achieve their goals. Companies and Corporations do not
(ITT not withstanding). I have no problem with a private
company being handed from farther to son ad infinitum.
It's their business what they do with the proceeds of their
efforts. They don't force me to pay taxes to them or purchase
their product. I do have a problem with "Joe" saying, "God
said that he is my ruler and OH, by the way, so is his family
in perpetuity". That really gets my knickers in a twist!
We have a ruling class in the United States and it is just about as fluid as the ruling class in more traditional societies. The wealth is inherited and passed from hand to hand within the ethereal realm of what Paul Fussell calles the "Out of Sight Rich." The plum corporate positions are passed around through "networking," which -- as a word -- is not nearly as disreputable as nepotism, or favouritism, although there is no difference in fact. Every job search book or article on résumés will tell you it's not how good your credentials are ("What" you know) but how effectively you can network ("Who" you know).
As I implied the segues from the government sector to the
private sector as if they are equivalent are not valid. Wealth
alone is fine. Wealth turned to political power is wrong.
Therefore the only fair solution to this dilemma is to always
keep the government as weak as possible. The worst
thing to do would be to give up and accept that the "Out of
Sight Rich" will always control things so we might as well let
them appoint an emperor.
And, much more dangerous, we must pretend that the people we elect to high office are the best qualified, and that they -- in turn -- select the best qualified for membership in their government.
FR is proof that we don't accept this premise. Clinton and
Congress had more dysfunctional morons in the government
than the British Isles could hold. The only ones pretending
are the Republicrats and Demicans that they are not turning
our government as socialist as Britain and the EU.
Goetz, I thought your personal profile was very interesting:
Ideology: Christian monarchist (a political pre-Rafaelite)
Default Affiliation: Conservative Republican
Does that mean that you would be willing to risk a potentially
evil emperor in hope of a benevolent king?