Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

Might be worth looking at that track record over more than just the current generation, don't you think? Since, you know, heredity is important in selection here.

Elizabeth II - Exceptional
George VI - Decent

(Note, both of the above were by accident, and not due to inherit because of:)

Edward VIII - Coward who shirked his responsibility
George V - Coward and brute
Edward VII - Drunkard and rake who would have made President Clinton blush
Victoria - Self-obessed depressive who refused to particiapte in government role for years
William IV - Decent sort, responsible for ten illegitimate children but no legal issue
George IV - Drunk, crook, gambler, rake, opium addict
George III - Mad as a sack of badgers

In the same time line, there were some pretty outstanding Presidents of the United States, and some equally outstanding Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

And whilst the recent two, favoured by the abdication, have been Good Monarchs, the whole point of this thread was the dread in which Charles' accession is held by a substantial part of the populace.

Kings make for great entertainment, but not much of a system of government.