>In America, at least, we have historically rejected the idea of a hereditary monarchy.
Just looking at history of presidents...George Bush Jr and George Bush Sr. Do you think George Bush Jr would have been president if his father wasn't? I'm not saying that GWB isn't competent or anything like that...but is your assertion that if he didn't have the name (and inherited wealth and connections), he would have been a viable candidate?
Same could be said about the Clinton's, so I don't think this is partisan.
In a hereditary monarchy, the king rules until he dies, or abdicates in favor of his son. If this breaks down, through war, sibling rivalry, or lack of an heir... that tends to be a real problem.
In the United States, the titular head of state is chosen through a weird gameshow, and any given head of state can play that game twice. On two occasions, the son of a successful game show contestant has leveraged name recognition to also win a round in the hot seat.
Right, and we also have billionaires. That doesn't seem to negate the fact that historically, this country explicitly rejected the idea of a hereditary monarchy.
Literally nobody is suggesting that the children of the wealthy should be penniless.