A new political party?

I've often said, "Better a good King than a corrupt Republic."  It's a phrase I may have picked up from someone; I'm not certain.  I've never shied away from letting it be known that I've always preferred a monarchy to other forms of government, at least in theory.

The trouble with monarchy, though, comes with the death of the monarch.  Succession by heredity isn't generally a good idea because it too often leads to a murky gene pool and being the son or daughter of a monarch doesn't guarantee possession of the necessary attributes; neither is succession by election a good idea because too many people don't take the time to investigate the persons they elect.  "This person has a good smile and looks good on television," too many think; "he'll be a great leader!"  That doesn't usually work out very well.

For several years now I've pondered this dilemna, though - admittedly - not too seriously.  I've long been fond of Plato's notions of the Guardians, the Auxiliaries, and the Workers, but he doesn't account for the reality of sin.  Consequently, his political theories - though attractive - aren't terribly useful.

How then does one find a good King?  The answer appeared before me this morning on Facebook on the wall of one of my friends:

The caption accompanying the image read:

Supreme executive power derived from some farcical aquatic ceremony is far better than an anarcho-syndicalist commune in which everyone takes it in turns to act as sort of supreme executive officer for the week.

That's the answer to the dilemna (nevermind the fact that the sword given King Arthur by the Lady of the Lake - Excalibur - is not the sword that made him King; that sword - Caliburn - he drew from the stone and anvil and was thereby manifested "rightwise King born of all England").  We simply need a strange sword to appear in some churchyard somewhere or a bizarra lady to reach her arm through the water.  It can't be much worse than where we're headed now.