how did kings become kings?

Kings became kings in ancient days because they were fierce or heroic or both, and the system of hereditary rulership came into being because the sons of kings were raised to be fierce and heroic and if they were not suited for leadership then the regal position went to someone who was -- and to his sons -- and thus no one family monopolized the ruling position.

Kings and emperors always lead their troops into battle -- that was their role -- and it has only been in post-Napoleonic Europe, along with the rise of democracy, that the ruling families have retained their positions of power without the traditional heroic aptitude for it.

These days, ruling families along with elected governments, are administrators rather than fierce and heroic leaders -- that role being taken up by generals and admirals and commodores who more likely to act as administrators, too, rather than action heroes.

The fierce and heroic deeds of the kings of ancient days are now performed by ordinary men and women who, by virtue of a strict military pecking order, are unlikely to ever be rewarded with the traditional leadership positions they deserve.

Wars are orchestrated by old men in fancy uniforms on the instructions of politicians instructed by corporate CEOs and nowhere in this scenario do the hereditary ruling families play much of a part unless, of course, they are major corporate shareholders.

So, why is it that a pretty ordinary guy like Prince Charles, for instance, can become the next King of England by virtue of the hereditary tradition?

Why does England need a king or queen these days, especially when he or she is not in keeping with the original purpose of the regal role?

At what point in history did the regal role became strictly hereditary allowing all sorts of people -- neither fierce nor heroic -- to be elevated to the role of king or queen?

Granted, the regal role has now been downgraded to that of a figurehead - a tourist attraction as well as a rubber stamp sort of role - but if someone has to perform this role, why does it have to be hereditary?

Isn't this nepotism at its worst?

Many people can remember when the Queen's father, King George, died in 1952. News of his death was not as dramatic as the later news of Princess Diana's death - but it was sad all the same because everyone knew he didn't want to be a king.

King George was thrust into a role he was unsuited for by virtue of his brother's abdication, and while he did the best he could during the very difficult war years, the job eventually killed him with stress and worry.

At that point in history -- with Adolph Hitler strutting his stuff -- it was not a good time to reconsider the whole notion of monarchy, but the abdication following the Wallis-Simpson affair was definitely a good reason to abolish the regal role.

It's interesting that France, Russia and the United States needed a revolution to get rid of their monarchs, while Commonwealth countries still hang on to the monarch as a figurehead -- as if they couldn't exist as a republic.

It's even more interesting that the United States and other nations have created what a lot of people consider to be a regal role, if not an hereditary one, in the presidential system.

We've had two Roosevelts and two Bushes and nearly had two Kennedys, North Korea has hereditary rulership and Saddam Hussein was heading in the same direction with his spoilt brat sons being primed to take over from him.

It once was the catch cry that anyone could become the president of the United States, but nobody believes it's possible any more. It's a shame that the mantra that attracted so many people to the land is no longer true.

Aspiring to become the president of the United States is as fruitless as aspiring to become the king or queen of England. You can be ordinary - as ordinary as Prince Charles or George Bush - but you need daddy or mommy to give you the birthright for it.

Is this a smart way to be governed?

Whatever happened to the 'best person for the job' ideal? Is it time we abolished all monarchies and the inept kings this anachronistic system fosters?