The idea is simple - we are looking at a hierarchy of succession. We have had queens as rulers many times, and it has worked fine.
I guess a better question might be, does it make sense for succession to be based on birth over capability? Perhaps a better way to go, if you want to keep it as a monarchy anyhow, would be to have the current ruler select their successor based on who seems to be the best leader.
Shouldn't capability, and the best interest of the people/ nation come over genetics as a rule...?
I don't really think there needs to be a royal family at all in this day and age. It's ceremonial anyway. However, if there must be, surely they should include daughters and women as well. To not include them is to basically concede that they aren't human. It is especially ironic since Queen Elizabeth has been ruling for so long now.
The time where the gender mattered has long past, for any number of reasons. One of those main reasons is that the role of King or Queen is essentially ceremonial, even if it is their government. Also, consider that the two longest sitting monarchs in the history of the United Kingdom are female, and both massively popular at that.
No that's bs, the queen is whoever is married to the king, it's not the other way around. The oldest make child should inherit the throne, if there aren't any then the brother of the king if there isn't any, then the female child can inherit it. Stop being so feminist people, it's been like that for so long and it's fine so leave it. And yes I know Queen Elizabeth has been ruling for so long but how many kings have there been who ruled? Yeah thought so. I like to feel like a man is in power, in my relationship and in the government, though a queen isn't very politically influential, she is just a figurehead. But either way, I'm a female and I believe that.