Author's Remarks:
The intense, avidly and even endemically quite asininely subscribed to, as well as passionately believed in notion, that those ostensibly regarded as belonging to a hierarchal and thus a superiorly privileged and likewise societally entitled elite in distinctly classism entrenched Britain, are rightfully there because of which perceived male gloriously assumed in their minds to be adorned as such by divine right has off-loaded his sperm in some equally entitled female’s vagina resultantly getting her pregnant and consequently quite instinctively have bestowed on their conceived offspring, regardless of the number they produce or their evidently conspicuous stupidity, the automatic birth right not only to be unquestionably deemed infinitely better than the rest of us but likewise also the distinctive and unchallenged right to rule unelected over the rest of us, courtesy of an outmoded and Middle Ages mind-set attitude; a system similarly totally devoid of democracy, any kind of meritocracy and is itself quite blatantly indifferent to equality both in terms of one’s natural ethnicity, as long as it is obviously different from their own, and as well all accepted restrictions on the concept of equality of opportunity.
Under the UK’s first past the post political system, in what passes for its democracy, we’ve had PMs like Tony Blair elected by huge majorities and for more than one term. Should their children therefore because of who they are, similarly as well be automatically in their case be given the keys to Number 10 Downing Street and therefore by birth right become our perspective Prime Ministers? And if you say no, what’s the essential difference between this notion regarding them, and effectively whose parents were democratically elected, and a monarchical birth right candidate whose parents weren’t being given as of right the keys to the British realm?