>>Your remark above isn't in any way representing a flaw in a regal system - it's just one among the systems where a (royal) family competes in politics better than others.
>
>
>Um, no.
>
>They don't compete in politics.
>
>They compete in warfare.

Which is just politics by other means.

>I'm sure the significance can be wiped away with some word play.
>
>Talking about this with you has been a waste of time.

And your trying to portray the appearance of dynasties as "families competing in politics" is futile. They exist, even when not royal and when not having their people in visible top places - key places usually suffice. They are a mechanism of keeping the power concentrated, even when they don't bother to have a runner.

The candidate they put up is probably what they think the general public would like. The wordplay here would probably revolve around being more or less cynical.