Writing about Hillary Clinton as the prospective Democratic presidential candidate, Camille Paglia asks “What exactly has she ever accomplished?”
Camille, Camille, Camille.
Would anyone have asked, upon George III’s accession to the Kingship, “What exactly has he ever accomplished?”
Would anyone have asked, when Marie Antoinette became the Queen of France, “What exactly has she ever accomplished?”
Would anyone have asked, when Lord Cardigan was named commander of the Light Brigade and his brother-in-law the Earl of Lucan was named overall British cavalry commander in the Crimean War, ”What exactly have they ever accomplished?” (Well, a few people did, but they were pretty much ignored)
Camille, your question reflects the mindset of an earlier America in which it was widely believed that leaders should be selected based on their actual accomplishments.
Given the energetic yawns of the MSM with regards to Benghazi, Fast & Furious, the IRS scandals, and the NSA (to name a few), I honestly believe that the upcoming elections in 2014/2016 may be our last shot at maintaining our republic. If we can't muster up enough gumption and support to put a boot to a few bottoms and string up some political careers, we might as well just admit that it's time to throw in the towel.
However... if we ever do decide to chuck the Constitution in the shredder and go back to the idea of ruling families, I hope that we would at least do it properly. Britain has a perfectly good set of royals that they're willing to share, after all. And frankly, Queen Liz  is a whole heck of a lot more interesting than Hillary has ever been or ever will be.
 No disrespect intended, yer majesty. Informal vocabulary is just part of our quaint colonial charm.