I saw this video going viral by a critic of the British monarchy, calling hereditary power unfair:
Hereditary power may seem unfair, but how it is more unfair than favoritism or crony capitalism in the US, or having wealthy parents, a superior IQ, or other innate, hereditary advantages at life. Inequality, unfairness exists everywhere, and a lot of success or power may seem unearned or undeserved, such as why is Cathie Wood so rich when her fund has done so poorly? Or how does Nancy Pelosi still have a job if she is so corrupt. Or, is Biden truly the most qualified person to run the country?
Some of these other criticisms are also uninformed, like accusing her of being complicit in imperialism, which doesn’t make sense given that decolonization began in the 1940s, a decade before her reign. By the end of the ’50s, Great Britain had already lost considerable territory including India, Ghana, Sudan, and the Suez Canal. Policy is crafted by parliament, with the Crown being neutral and not exercising any veto or legislative power, anyway.
Yes, some may be surprised to learn that the UK and ‘commonwealth’ countries do not have free speech. Even now the US is still unique in this regard. People assume that free speech is ubiquitous among ‘developed , Western countries’; hardly. Same for Nordic countries.
America doesn’t have pseudo-celebrity monarchs, but it does have its own form of idolatry such as athletes, business leaders, politicians, celebrities, etc. and also considerable political division. Maybe it’s better to have the country unified in support of a unelected figurehead of power, than people constantly fighting over whether Republicans or Democrats are more evil. Like monarchs, pro athletes are adored by the masses and owe this success to superior athleticism genes, which is not much different from having a superior bloodline anyway given that both are hereditary and unearned in that sense. Obviously athletes have to practice a lot, but good genes are still a necessary even if insufficient condition.