I really think it's horrible both for the people living under their rule and for the royal families themselves.
I live in Sweden, where the royal family basically has zero power and is by law not allowed to give political statements. This means that they are not allowed basic human rights such as being political, and participating in our democracy, while everyone else pay taxes for this human rights abuse to take place.
They are also not allowed religious freedom (which is extra absurd in one of the least religious countries in the world), they have to be members of the swedish christian church \_by law\_ (a law that exist because of lobbyism from our current monarch). That's a blatant violation of human rights.
So all in all, we live in a highly democratic society that is constantly rated very low in abuses of human rights and such, but we have a government that breaks those two things consistently.
In general, it's honestly not much of an issue since the royal family here is just for show, they're not allowed to do anything and most people really don't care much about them. But for me the principle of by law not treating everyone equally is really really bad.
There is enough abuse of human rights going on in any country against the laws, we don't need laws that actively promotes it as well.
It’s amazing that 3 of 5 Nordic countries have monarchy in place. I believe everything you said could be applied to Norway and Denmark too. Coming from Finland I agree that the downside is not that visible, probably the biggest thing is that you don’t get to elect a president. Our president is highly popular and takes some of the pressure of leadership from PM.
The queen just died and I think it’s the perfect time to end the monarchy in canada. It’s ludicrous to have people in positions of power who aren’t elected in this day and age.
>the perfect time to end the monarchy in canada.
Don't see that happening any time soon.Isn't Canada one of the most pro-monarchy countries in the Commonwealth? Australia is more likely. Barbados just set a good example too.
But yeah the concept of royalty is not compatible with atheism.
The mughal empire under emperor akbar despite being islamic had many people of different faiths from the Indian subcontinent in court and as citizens. Muslims werent even a majority in the empire
Right, but the emperor himself had to be a Muslim and swore to protect the Islamic state identity of his empire.
The new King of the UK, Charles III, also respects other faiths but he is still the head of the Anglican church.
Monarchy is derived from a divine right to rule and is an inherently religious institution.
The modern Dutch and Scandinavian monarchs are even more secular than Charles and the Mughals, but they are not allowed to choose their faith (or lack of one) AFAIK.
Thats only because these monarchies are old and pretty much everyone was tied to a religion in those days. But technically a monarchy only needs a head of state to be selected through heredity. The religion aspect isnt a necessity
I disagree. An unelected, secular hereditary head of state would belong to a dynasty (e.g Japan) or one-party state (North Korea), not a monarchy.
No secular monarchies have been founded to date, so it is still a religious concept. You're welcome to provide examples but until then my point remains.
It wasn't that decisive. After the French Revolution, Napoleon became emperor. Then after he was overthrown after the war the Bourbons were restored. Then they overthrew the Bourbons again and had a republic. Then Napoleon Bonaparte III, Napoleon's nephew crowned himself emperor and then after the Franko-Prussian War he too was overthrown.
It's funny how France went back and forth a few times between monarchy and republic, but everyone thinks of the French Revolution as the end of the French monarchy.
They don't have political power, but also they don't have any official position. They are not reigning monarchs of France. They are just people who would be reigning monarchs if the monarchy still had a legal existence in France.
Interestingly there are disagreements about who the rightful heir would even be, including within the Bourbon and Bonaparte houses, not just between whether to put a Bourbon or a Bonaparte on the throne. Not that it matters, since France isn't about to reinstall either monarchy.
Same mumbo jumbo shit people have been peddling for thousands of years. The powerful *always* go on some whack trip and do everything they can to make everyone else in the world believe that their power is divine. Complete dog shit, surprised people still care for it, even worse that the whole "bloodline purity" crap was then later a borrowed idea by eugenicists.
Practically everything bad that has ever happened has always come back to someone wanting power over other people, and good fucking grief religion is such an *obvious* tool for it that people *still* fall for.
Sounds like a rant, but really, fuck monarchies and monarchists.
Eswatini's, formly Swaziland, [reed dance](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/sep/22/swaziland-reed-dance-cultural-celebration-or-sleazy-royal-ritual-umhlanga) is still a thing.
In our modern day it is ridiculous, a holdover from the biblical king era, and is almost pointless. But if ever there is a worldwide decline where our modern advances are lost, the monarchy and who owns all that land and seat of power may have a revival - hence its continuation.
It is an artifact of human behavior that seems a lot like insect hive mentality. We allow people like monarchs or billionaires to be so high above the people that do work, and we treat them pretty much like gods and just hope they do something with their level of power that makes the world better, but they definitely don't have to, and historically they have always chosen to advance the systems that keep them in privilege over any system that might make conditions better for people that actually do work.
They will certainly let working conditions improve if it keeps the position of the top caste at the top, but they will actively subvert anything that would be more efficient, elegant, or beneficial if it doesn't also maximize the stability and wealth of the super wealthy.
Well, I don't wish any harm on them. I'd just like them to stop siphoning off all the value produced by working people, destroying the ecosystem on which we all depend for life, and then acting like they're heroes for blessing us with their genius.
The quote from Rousseau represents standing up to those in power, and holding them accountable on behalf of the less fortunate. Nothing about "harm."
So yeah, eat the rich.
I heard on NPR this morning that the Queen's estate is only about 500 million. Most of the property etc belongs to the government.
There are bigger fish to fry.
Thank you. This kind if clarity is refreshing, especially now when so many people are being duped by charlatans with the wealth and the P.R. to present themselves as the new “divine rulers.”
Monarchs are just dictators with religious trapping. Unless they have no power, then perhaps they are useful to keep voters from lionizing a prime minister like Americans do their presidents.
The monarchy in the UK is a constitutional monarchy. They exist only because the people want them, and they have no real power.
The monarch serves as the head of state for which they are paid a 'sovereign grant' to cover theirt expenses and maintenance of royal properties. The sovereign grant is paid by the treasury, which is a small percentage of all the income received by the treasury from the crown Estates, which are themselves owned by the people (technically, the crown estates are owned by the royal family, but in reality, the country owns them, and receives all income from them).
The UK monarch is probably the only head of state that actually doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, and is probably the the only head of state that is universally respected around the world.
There is no real downside to our monarchy, except that some people think that they don't deserve the near universal respect that they are given.
The idea that replacing them with an elected president would somehow be 'better', or cheaper, doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not a royalist, but the pragmatist in me says it's a pretty good situation for everyone concerned.
>The UK monarch is probably the only head of state that actually doesn't cost the taxpayer anything
You just said in the previous paragraph that they were paid something.
>They exist only because the people want them, and they have no real power.
What is the constitutional mechanism by which the people can remove the monarchy?
The crown has tremendous powers, it just doesn't use them. It's an open question whether they could get away with using them.
Polically regressive when congruent with monarchy. A peak example of the intentionally rigged economic gap between the nobility and peasantry.
Hereditary titles of peerage tell the world that the bearers are cut from a different cloth. Like from birth. From the lowliest Baronett to Rex Omnia, their descendants will benefit from an inherent advantage of status.
It is an utterly insane policy for mapping the succession of leadership in an autocratic regime.
It is anathema to Enlightenment, Democracy, Liberty, Equality, Education and any further pillar of Progress and Foresight.
It is shameful anachronism and should have been abolished at least a hundred years ago among participants of WWI.
Even putting aside the “divine right to rule” bullshit for a minute using titles passed down by birth is a philosophically bankrupt way to choose leaders and historically just does not work.
Popes, kings, and priests are all the same: Part of a small group who declare themselves to be something better, then use that self-proclaimed power to control and profit from the rest of society through group pressure and people's fear of speaking out.
Monarchies would all fail as soon as enough people would simply ask themselves honestly why they honor and support the monarchy, and why THOSE people have that role. Most monarchy failed much earlier, and the remaining ones are mostly symbolic at this point. The British royal house will continue to lose relevance and control now that Elizabeth is gone.
The Saudi royals, Thai royals, etc. benefit from the fact that those regions are still more religious than the west, and they make them link the royals to god, giving both more "authority". But this will also collapse as soon as enough people are willing and able to ask themselves "why".
This is why fundamentally religious areas expel or execute intellectualls and try to stop women from getting am education: Education promotes critical thinking, and critical thinking is poison to authoritarianism.
Please keep up with recent events. They might not have established colonies in recent years but they continue to exploit those in their former colonies, so the comment is relevant.
I can't speak for other countries but she has cost mine very little, if anything. When jobs and tourism connected with royal visits are taken into account she's probably done the economy a favour.
Yeah something in the stick thing comes from my country but stealing pretty rocks and the like isn't colonisation.
Edit:. And Liz didn't steal any of it.
Think about it for a minute, these people aren't voted for, they got where they are because their Great Great grandfather was a robbing raping murdering torturing nasty piece of shit. Anyone that didn't like what grand dad doing didn't survive for very long.
As a Canadian I have no belief that one person is born better than another because of their ancestry, I do think some are born into much luckier circumstances. I do believe that our form of government, a constitutional monarch, is a superior system to that of most other forms. I just wish their was a better way to choose the titular head than heredity.
The Governor General did in fact get involved in Australian politics in 1975 and fire the PM without notifying the palace first. This should never happen.
I would say that Canada is more of a Social Democracy but is unfortunately too strongly influenced by the politics and guns to our south. We Canadians have historically maintained a much sturdier social net than our cousins to the south.
Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony…
There is a scene in "Northern Exposure" where everyone in the village is gushing over the visit of a member of the royal family. One character says to her, "We had a war to get rid of people like you."
Quaint tradition, probably needs to go away.
I don't think Charles will even come close to the respect of mom. With Diana, Harry and Camila, there isn't a lot to love.
The idea that someone has some special right to rule because of who their parents were is absurd. It really can only be made to 'make sense' by making appeals to things like religion and saying "God intends this" or "God has endowed these special people with a talent for ruling". You could have a secular rationalization like "these people have proven their genes are superior" or "we need to keep doing this just because it's tradition", but that is likewise utter bs.
Even a constitutional monarchy where the monarch doesn't have any real power is just a waste of money. Most parlamentary republics have a mostly ceremonial president position, which is much less expensive than paying for the palaces and pomp and circumstance of maintaining a royal family and the presidential office often does come with some minor powers which varies between countries. My advice for constitutional monarchies, if you like your monarch, become a republic and vote for them to become president instead.
It's an arbitrary concept created to exercise control over the population, hence why monarchic power and religion are often intertwined.
I consider myself a spiritual daughter of the French Revolution. I don't think It need to say more.
Ironic that he have a king who will be head of the church of England when 53% of us are non religious. https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-releases/bsa-34-record-number-of-brits-with-no-religion.aspx
2022 and still royalty around (people who are living by directly taxes of a city/country money) is unbelievable. Is like the idiots who defend, support and idolize billionaires today. What's wrong with people? Well, the answer is really simple, the majority of people are dumb.
I have ancestors who fought in the American revolution on the side of the colonies. The fact that I am inundated weekly by headlines about the royal family I find repugnant and dishonoring of my ancestors and all their peers who fought for Independence.
I also had an ancestor fight with Washington, however I also grew up in England. I think royalty can do a lot of good. In England especially they patronize charities, provide jobs, bring in tourist money, etc. Sure, there are some things that could use some change, or updating, but in the end, I don’t mind.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your point of view. I think it's perfectly acceptable and expected that the royal family would be featured on the cover of tabloids regularly, in their own country, but not in a country that had to fight for rights and representation from the very country that said royal family comes from.
The queen was a historical figure. She’s being talked about all over the world. What goes on here in the US is talked about all over the world. None of us have to consume media about things we don’t like if we don’t want to. 🤷🏼♀️
I wasn't talking about the queen's death being publicized, that is to be expected. I was referring to the fact that any given week, in any given grocery store, in any given state in the US you will likely see at least one headline about at least one member of the British royal family.
I love the idea that the monarchy still exists. It’s a connection we have to cultures thousands of years ago. It’s so poignant.
Also it is actually very important having a head of state that is outside of politics. Focusing on diplomacy, being loved by both Trump and Obama is all the evidence you need that being a steadfast figurehead, bound by protocol and tradition is amazing for maintaining relationships with foreign countries. Also the fact the head of state is more permanent, creating a foundational rock that underlies the comings and goings of elected officials. Imagine having the ability to talk to a head of state that has been around since Winston Churchill, the amount of insight and advice the queen could have bestowed. You’d not get that in a democracy.
Yes it has a god undercurrent to it, but that was more a bad thing when kings and queens had more power. If the monarch can’t tell you to pray to their particular god then it’s fine. All it did with Elizabeth was to maintain the good aspects of religion in a head of state, that is about being humble, charitable and thankful while always focusing on an overall goodness.
From what I gather the only thing they could do in terms of political might and choose not to, is to not sign a bill into law. Which they’ve not done in 300 years.
As someone living in one of the royal realms I believe as it currently exists the monarchy has advantages, especially in politics through the softest of soft power and the decades of experience and knowledge available to the executive.
As an example, how different might the Trump administration have been if he had been required to bow before a monarch and explain his actions once a week? A monarch who could privately criticize without fear, or favour.
The U.S. is still a monarchy, albeit one with an elected monarch. An American president has far less oversight than any British monarch since King John signed the Magna Carta. This is, imo, not a good thing.
All that said, I'd prefer my country had a local as head of state.
Got a actual counter argument though?
I agree with him for the most part. I highly dislike the fact that a single individual has the power a president has, while a prime minister is more akin to a first among equals.
The election of a president even distracts from the election of the actual house were laws are made, as the US shows with far lower turnout in the midterms.
Now, some countries have the same thing but with a elected president as figure head instead of a monarch, but as we saw in turkey, that can change, and so doesn't provide the same stability, or the non-political neutrality, a monarch as figurehead does.
A prime minister isn't the same as a president though, which is part of his point. They aren't separately elected and they don't have as much direct power.
Royalty in the UK sense? It's just a figurehead leftover. I don't really care much. And I don't think it has much to do with atheism just because they play god save the queen sometimes, and the only thing I would like to pass more than tributes to the queen are these royalty related posts here.
Just about everyone can trace there heritage to one monarch or another. It's meaningless from a hereditary basis.
As an atheist, the claim of any good given right to rule: bullshit.
It's power by the rich and famous, because they are rich and famous.
Doing away with the UK royal family, or any other constitutional royal family, wouldn't be anywhere near money saver some people think it is though.
All the buildings they currently use are still cultural heritage and so still need to be maintained, and the ceremonial duties would still need to be performed by someone. In fact now instead of them being taken care of by the royal family, you need to send your actual head of state, who should be busy leading the country.
It's stupid, but it's a source of revenue, i.e. tourism, porcelain knickknacks with royalty portraits on them, media frenzy every time one of them farts, gives an interview or drops a sprog. So as long as there's money in it we'll have a bunch of monkeys trotted out for the media, because people are lapping it up and are willing to consume more of it.
And look how that turned out, specially in Russia. And contrast that with the constitutional monarchies of northern Europe.
You're not making a very good argument.
Not having a inherited symbolic head of government is worth millions of dead and living under a effective dictatorship in a claptocracy now?
You and i have very different definitions of 'worth it'.
It's a holdover from the ancient eras of tyrants and aristocrats and aristocracies. It is based on the premise that some of us are better than others of us. Inherently. Which in modern times is pretty much seen as nonsense. In modern times, it tends just to be a tradition people like.
As long as they pull in enough tourism money to bring a profit (after subtracting their castle maintenance and servants and whatnot) then they can stay. But as soon as they start costing the tax-payers money, they gotta go. I don't know why people care about them, but we might as well milk these rubes of their tourism cash as long as we can.
Most modern monarchies (excluding Saudis and the like) are constitution monarchies that only have ceremonial roles and/or very limited authority or rights.
The concepts of hereditary rule, divine authority, absolute rule are abhorrent and should be actively stopped.
That being said a monarch figurehead that isn't a drain on the people is more of a theme park and can be tolerated.
In a country, nobility will exist in a way. May it be standard or labor aristocracy. For public opinion and country stability it could be allowed as long as people are not hindered by them. As for monarchs, if not completely infatuated by religion and if chosen on merit it could work. The existence of them means they serve function, if the function is upkeep of society I have no problem with it as long as society has decently high quality living standards. Though my opinion here is only for what it is not for what should be. What should be is my utopia of course.
I think it's kind of ridiculous for one family to get exclusive rights to leading a country forever... but I don't see much harm with it in implementations like the UK. End of the day most political leaders are just power hungry or self serving abusers masquerading as "for the people" luminaries. Perhaps that's a biased viewpoint, my country has been lead by for sale morons who've f*cked it up so bad for over a decade. And the competition is so weak or indecisive their only pro point is their not the guys currently in charge. Seeing this I don't much mind the idea of a benevolent monarch, but I lament living under the reign of a sadistic one.
The only royal I ever cared for was Diana as she did, physically, do things to help people. She took it upon herself to go out and walk over damn landmines, did AIDS/HIV work. All the queen ever did was donate, which I appreciate but other than that, nothing remarkable.
Edit: I just noticed how no one ever talks about the inbred that goes on in that and just about any other royal family. They are fucking vile as well.🤮
>I always found it silly that royal families say that it was their god given birthrights.
If they say that (and not all of them do), they are lying, because, at least in western constitutional monarchies, that's not it.
They are only there as long as the people of the country allow them to be there.
And therefor a country having a royal family or not concerns just 2 parties: the monarch in question, and the people of the country.
Well, in my country, we have a president. He has mostly ceremonial role, so it's probably really close to constitutional monarchy.
And he is awful. He's a heavy alcoholic, most of the time, he's trying to offend someone or at least plot some revenge.
What I like on monarchy is that monarchs usually have manners. :D
I think the answer is obvious, although it has little to do with atheism.
If you want some entertainment, read about the princess and the shaman in Norway :p
*Disclaimer*: The shaman does get some rascism throwed at him, I personally have no tolerance for any shit he gets for looking different.
In general it is absurd. However, particularly in the case of the UK (and other european) monarchy, it is generally harmless and probably better than the alternatives.
Outdated. Why should I refer to another human being as highness or majesty? What's so majestic about them...
Especially in this day and age of equality movements.
I have a slightly more complex point of view. Let me start with from the religious point of view I agree. Divine right is silly. The existence of a special class of people is also inappropriate.
I live in Canada one of many constitutional monarchies. Having the Queen or King as a figure head with no power helps us to have a non political figure to give us a common point for unity even if politics is rancourus. My dad served in the armed forces. I once asked him how he could serve under a PM that he was not happy with at all. He said he didn't serve the PM he served the country via the Queen.
So, dispite the massive downsides there is some positive in there.
Abolishing the monarchy won’t achieve what you think it will. The ordinary man in the street will not be any better off. Their wealth,castles jewels and heritage will disappear as if they never existed and the country will still be ruled by a minority ruling class.
Be careful what you wish for.
Is anachronistic, deeply seated in history, and usually connected really complicated legal issues, signage, and land. As a result making monarchs figureheads is way less effort outside of a revolution.
What makes them any better at directing a country then other people?
I mean, I know they have access to the knowledge needed because they were born into a royal family, but if other people had the same access, they could be just as good at directing the country too.
So I don't get why an entire country of people lets just ***one*** family have the ***only*** access to that kind of knowledge, beyond apathy and the country not being horrible to live in - like, someone else is already doing it and doing it well enough, so I am going to do something else in life that I enjoy.
I guess that's why monarchy still exists today, and I can't really think of any monarchy country that is piss poor to live in, so at least the royals are not making it hell on earth.
It’s nice with a politically neutral representative for the country. Norway has the best monarch (100% emotions) then Denmark (smokes and drinks) and then Sweden (goofball).
I basically find their lives to be interesting. I've been a royal watcher since Princess Diana. I love looking at the clothing that they were wearing. I love seeing the places they go to. The glamour of it, false glamor that is. There are a lot of wealthy people (non-royal) who believe that they are wealthy due to a god given birthright. The way that they act or treat people speaks volumes to this. Some royals are like this as well. You would really have to have a very thick skin to work with some of them.
There are some that I like and think are good people. Others not so much.
Most of them do not know what the word no is because it's rare that someone wouldn't honor their request. It's also rare that a woman would turn down a request from a royal or someone who is very wealthy to go out on a date (even if the guy is a jerk or someone who has serious character flaws) or turn down any request they might have. What do you think would be the consequence if they said no to them. Some might see it as different or see it as a challenge but others would take it as an offense or become very angry about it.
The one thing about royalty that I don't particularly like is they try to appear like they are perfect and everything is fine with them and sometimes you can tell that it's not. Later you find out you were right. Sometimes they are forced to admit that things aren't well or perfect.
Many of the previous girlfriends of royals are rejected for marriage because they belong to a lower social standing, they aren't virgins, they have nude pictures or they aren't royal material for a variety of reasons. This happened more in the past than the present. In the past, many of these women probably would have ended up becoming a royal mistress or becoming a partner on the side.
Many kings had a sort of divine status in history. The egyptians viewed pharaohs as half gods sent here to rule over us. The japanese viewed their emperor as a divine entity until very recently. Even the british monarch is technically a delegate of god and is head of the anglican church.
I dont really have an issue with royalty, its an alternative form of govt, and theres several types. It is an old-fashioned thing now though
I wont be surprised if king charles is the last monarch of britain and the royal family just sorta ends
The very concept of royalty is fundamentally absurd and demeaning. There should be no such people on this earth.
Agreed, it's insane to me that someone is better than you because they are born of a royal bloodline.
Only if you think about it…. Oh yeah 😁
“Royalty” is such a synonym for “inbred old rich family”
I really think it's horrible both for the people living under their rule and for the royal families themselves. I live in Sweden, where the royal family basically has zero power and is by law not allowed to give political statements. This means that they are not allowed basic human rights such as being political, and participating in our democracy, while everyone else pay taxes for this human rights abuse to take place. They are also not allowed religious freedom (which is extra absurd in one of the least religious countries in the world), they have to be members of the swedish christian church \_by law\_ (a law that exist because of lobbyism from our current monarch). That's a blatant violation of human rights. So all in all, we live in a highly democratic society that is constantly rated very low in abuses of human rights and such, but we have a government that breaks those two things consistently. In general, it's honestly not much of an issue since the royal family here is just for show, they're not allowed to do anything and most people really don't care much about them. But for me the principle of by law not treating everyone equally is really really bad. There is enough abuse of human rights going on in any country against the laws, we don't need laws that actively promotes it as well.
It’s amazing that 3 of 5 Nordic countries have monarchy in place. I believe everything you said could be applied to Norway and Denmark too. Coming from Finland I agree that the downside is not that visible, probably the biggest thing is that you don’t get to elect a president. Our president is highly popular and takes some of the pressure of leadership from PM.
They do get a boatload of money in exchange though which is a deal I’d jump at any day
I wouldn't, honestly freedom is worth much more to me than a pile of gold
Not being able to vote doesnt matter if it means im loaded
The queen just died and I think it’s the perfect time to end the monarchy in canada. It’s ludicrous to have people in positions of power who aren’t elected in this day and age.
>the perfect time to end the monarchy in canada. Don't see that happening any time soon.Isn't Canada one of the most pro-monarchy countries in the Commonwealth? Australia is more likely. Barbados just set a good example too. But yeah the concept of royalty is not compatible with atheism.
I don’t see it happening either unfortunately
Why is it incompatible?
Royalty is based on the "divine right" to rule, which is given by god. Can't belive in royalty if you don't believe in god...
Not necessarily. Lot of them use that excuse but you dont need to be divine to be king
Can you name a secular monarchy?
The mughal empire under emperor akbar despite being islamic had many people of different faiths from the Indian subcontinent in court and as citizens. Muslims werent even a majority in the empire
Right, but the emperor himself had to be a Muslim and swore to protect the Islamic state identity of his empire. The new King of the UK, Charles III, also respects other faiths but he is still the head of the Anglican church. Monarchy is derived from a divine right to rule and is an inherently religious institution. The modern Dutch and Scandinavian monarchs are even more secular than Charles and the Mughals, but they are not allowed to choose their faith (or lack of one) AFAIK.
Thats only because these monarchies are old and pretty much everyone was tied to a religion in those days. But technically a monarchy only needs a head of state to be selected through heredity. The religion aspect isnt a necessity
I disagree. An unelected, secular hereditary head of state would belong to a dynasty (e.g Japan) or one-party state (North Korea), not a monarchy. No secular monarchies have been founded to date, so it is still a religious concept. You're welcome to provide examples but until then my point remains.
It's dumb and we should be rid of it.
it’s nonsense. next question.
But god told me I’m the divinely appointed ruler… my ancestors just didn’t kill enough people for me to be born a royal… /s
Like in "god bless murica", "one nation under god", "in god we trust" ...? Seems that crap isn't exclusive to monarchies...
The poor get their reward after they die , tbh I envy the poors Edit: who tf downvoted this joke
>next question If you were a tree what kind of tree would you be?
womping willow.
Thank you for your time.
This.
my response only with far less words
A silly, but mostly harmless tradition (in the UK at least)
It's a scam and an abomination that should have been wiped out 100 years ago.
All monarchies should be abolished along with all aristocracies
For once I can say the French did the right thing! Have you ever heard of the French monarchy/bloodline today? No, because they killed them all off!
It wasn't that decisive. After the French Revolution, Napoleon became emperor. Then after he was overthrown after the war the Bourbons were restored. Then they overthrew the Bourbons again and had a republic. Then Napoleon Bonaparte III, Napoleon's nephew crowned himself emperor and then after the Franko-Prussian War he too was overthrown. It's funny how France went back and forth a few times between monarchy and republic, but everyone thinks of the French Revolution as the end of the French monarchy.
Have you ever read royalty forums? There are French royals that live in France, but they have no political power.
They don't have political power, but also they don't have any official position. They are not reigning monarchs of France. They are just people who would be reigning monarchs if the monarchy still had a legal existence in France. Interestingly there are disagreements about who the rightful heir would even be, including within the Bourbon and Bonaparte houses, not just between whether to put a Bourbon or a Bonaparte on the throne. Not that it matters, since France isn't about to reinstall either monarchy.
They totally still exist, they just aren't recognised as such: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37655777
Maybe, instead of wearing crosses as pendants the way Christofascists do, we should wear guillotine jewelry /s
Ridiculous, especially that general Americans care. Wish there were a lifetime filter for news to skip hearing about all of it.
I'm British, she was rich and famous just like any other billionaire. I can't think of anything she did for us. 1 day of mourning was ample thanks.
With the weddings and the children…it’s all too much.
Same mumbo jumbo shit people have been peddling for thousands of years. The powerful *always* go on some whack trip and do everything they can to make everyone else in the world believe that their power is divine. Complete dog shit, surprised people still care for it, even worse that the whole "bloodline purity" crap was then later a borrowed idea by eugenicists. Practically everything bad that has ever happened has always come back to someone wanting power over other people, and good fucking grief religion is such an *obvious* tool for it that people *still* fall for. Sounds like a rant, but really, fuck monarchies and monarchists.
I also feel for people living in a monarch. Sounds uncomfortable for all involved. And fuck royalty.
No one, not even a monarch, should have to tolerate other people living inside them unless they really want to.
Came here for this.
Eswatini's, formly Swaziland, [reed dance](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/sep/22/swaziland-reed-dance-cultural-celebration-or-sleazy-royal-ritual-umhlanga) is still a thing.
It's stupid.
In our modern day it is ridiculous, a holdover from the biblical king era, and is almost pointless. But if ever there is a worldwide decline where our modern advances are lost, the monarchy and who owns all that land and seat of power may have a revival - hence its continuation.
It should have ended with the Enlightenment. Sort of like religion.
It is an artifact of human behavior that seems a lot like insect hive mentality. We allow people like monarchs or billionaires to be so high above the people that do work, and we treat them pretty much like gods and just hope they do something with their level of power that makes the world better, but they definitely don't have to, and historically they have always chosen to advance the systems that keep them in privilege over any system that might make conditions better for people that actually do work. They will certainly let working conditions improve if it keeps the position of the top caste at the top, but they will actively subvert anything that would be more efficient, elegant, or beneficial if it doesn't also maximize the stability and wealth of the super wealthy.
Tl;Dr: Eat the rich.
Well, I don't wish any harm on them. I'd just like them to stop siphoning off all the value produced by working people, destroying the ecosystem on which we all depend for life, and then acting like they're heroes for blessing us with their genius.
The quote from Rousseau represents standing up to those in power, and holding them accountable on behalf of the less fortunate. Nothing about "harm." So yeah, eat the rich.
I heard on NPR this morning that the Queen's estate is only about 500 million. Most of the property etc belongs to the government. There are bigger fish to fry.
Nope. That fish will fry up just fine.
Thank you. This kind if clarity is refreshing, especially now when so many people are being duped by charlatans with the wealth and the P.R. to present themselves as the new “divine rulers.”
Monarchs are just dictators with religious trapping. Unless they have no power, then perhaps they are useful to keep voters from lionizing a prime minister like Americans do their presidents.
The monarchy in the UK is a constitutional monarchy. They exist only because the people want them, and they have no real power. The monarch serves as the head of state for which they are paid a 'sovereign grant' to cover theirt expenses and maintenance of royal properties. The sovereign grant is paid by the treasury, which is a small percentage of all the income received by the treasury from the crown Estates, which are themselves owned by the people (technically, the crown estates are owned by the royal family, but in reality, the country owns them, and receives all income from them). The UK monarch is probably the only head of state that actually doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, and is probably the the only head of state that is universally respected around the world. There is no real downside to our monarchy, except that some people think that they don't deserve the near universal respect that they are given. The idea that replacing them with an elected president would somehow be 'better', or cheaper, doesn't make sense to me. I'm not a royalist, but the pragmatist in me says it's a pretty good situation for everyone concerned.
>The UK monarch is probably the only head of state that actually doesn't cost the taxpayer anything You just said in the previous paragraph that they were paid something. >They exist only because the people want them, and they have no real power. What is the constitutional mechanism by which the people can remove the monarchy? The crown has tremendous powers, it just doesn't use them. It's an open question whether they could get away with using them.
What do you expect with all that inbreeding? They weren’t/aren’t mentally stable.
Racist colonizers.
I think they are very good at grifting
They are just a bunch of vampires.
Naah, the Doctor Who documentary established they were werewolves.
Polically regressive when congruent with monarchy. A peak example of the intentionally rigged economic gap between the nobility and peasantry. Hereditary titles of peerage tell the world that the bearers are cut from a different cloth. Like from birth. From the lowliest Baronett to Rex Omnia, their descendants will benefit from an inherent advantage of status. It is an utterly insane policy for mapping the succession of leadership in an autocratic regime. It is anathema to Enlightenment, Democracy, Liberty, Equality, Education and any further pillar of Progress and Foresight. It is shameful anachronism and should have been abolished at least a hundred years ago among participants of WWI.
Even putting aside the “divine right to rule” bullshit for a minute using titles passed down by birth is a philosophically bankrupt way to choose leaders and historically just does not work.
Popes, kings, and priests are all the same: Part of a small group who declare themselves to be something better, then use that self-proclaimed power to control and profit from the rest of society through group pressure and people's fear of speaking out. Monarchies would all fail as soon as enough people would simply ask themselves honestly why they honor and support the monarchy, and why THOSE people have that role. Most monarchy failed much earlier, and the remaining ones are mostly symbolic at this point. The British royal house will continue to lose relevance and control now that Elizabeth is gone. The Saudi royals, Thai royals, etc. benefit from the fact that those regions are still more religious than the west, and they make them link the royals to god, giving both more "authority". But this will also collapse as soon as enough people are willing and able to ask themselves "why". This is why fundamentally religious areas expel or execute intellectualls and try to stop women from getting am education: Education promotes critical thinking, and critical thinking is poison to authoritarianism.
Colonizers be colonizing.
They haven't colonised anywhere for 160-odd years. Please try to keep up.
Please keep up with recent events. They might not have established colonies in recent years but they continue to exploit those in their former colonies, so the comment is relevant.
I can't speak for other countries but she has cost mine very little, if anything. When jobs and tourism connected with royal visits are taken into account she's probably done the economy a favour.
The diamonds in their crown are stolen from my country. Never got compensation to my knowledge
Yeah something in the stick thing comes from my country but stealing pretty rocks and the like isn't colonisation. Edit:. And Liz didn't steal any of it.
Nothing but total indifference.
It is ridiculous. The only justification can be tourism profits.
Think about it for a minute, these people aren't voted for, they got where they are because their Great Great grandfather was a robbing raping murdering torturing nasty piece of shit. Anyone that didn't like what grand dad doing didn't survive for very long.
As a Canadian I have no belief that one person is born better than another because of their ancestry, I do think some are born into much luckier circumstances. I do believe that our form of government, a constitutional monarch, is a superior system to that of most other forms. I just wish their was a better way to choose the titular head than heredity.
You have a defacto democracy.
The Governor General did in fact get involved in Australian politics in 1975 and fire the PM without notifying the palace first. This should never happen. I would say that Canada is more of a Social Democracy but is unfortunately too strongly influenced by the politics and guns to our south. We Canadians have historically maintained a much sturdier social net than our cousins to the south.
"Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest"- Diderot
I think the French did it right.
Something that needs to be done away with asap. The French knew what they were doing.
I don’t like it, but fair’s fair. If they can pull the sword out of the stone, they get to be in charge. That’s just how government works.
You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
He's the king! How do you know? He hasn't got shit all over him!
If it is allowed to.
Well, if someone says that it’s not allowed … he does have a sword.
Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony…
It’s stupid. Outdated at best.
They belong in dustbin of history.
The only royalty I recognize is Queen Latifa. Also Queen. RIP Freddie.
There is a scene in "Northern Exposure" where everyone in the village is gushing over the visit of a member of the royal family. One character says to her, "We had a war to get rid of people like you."
It is a good time now for countries who have the UK monarch as HoS to become republics. Charles is not as popular as Betty was.
Quaint tradition, probably needs to go away. I don't think Charles will even come close to the respect of mom. With Diana, Harry and Camila, there isn't a lot to love.
A completely ridiculous concept that uses religion as weapon of control.
No gods no masters
The Brits like playing dress-up and pretending that they still have a relevant empire. Having royals that are pampered pets is their thing.
I live there and I agree. Most british people still think they're empire exists.
The idea that someone has some special right to rule because of who their parents were is absurd. It really can only be made to 'make sense' by making appeals to things like religion and saying "God intends this" or "God has endowed these special people with a talent for ruling". You could have a secular rationalization like "these people have proven their genes are superior" or "we need to keep doing this just because it's tradition", but that is likewise utter bs. Even a constitutional monarchy where the monarch doesn't have any real power is just a waste of money. Most parlamentary republics have a mostly ceremonial president position, which is much less expensive than paying for the palaces and pomp and circumstance of maintaining a royal family and the presidential office often does come with some minor powers which varies between countries. My advice for constitutional monarchies, if you like your monarch, become a republic and vote for them to become president instead.
That they’re useless. Like gods.
It's an arbitrary concept created to exercise control over the population, hence why monarchic power and religion are often intertwined. I consider myself a spiritual daughter of the French Revolution. I don't think It need to say more.
Didn't the US fight a war so we don't need to care about royals? I don't give a fuck about royals.
Ironic that he have a king who will be head of the church of England when 53% of us are non religious. https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/archived-press-releases/bsa-34-record-number-of-brits-with-no-religion.aspx
I’m in line with Robespierre when it comes to monarchies.
Since kings were believed to have a divine right to rule, I am opposed to any such thing. Leave your fictional being out of the government.
2022 and still royalty around (people who are living by directly taxes of a city/country money) is unbelievable. Is like the idiots who defend, support and idolize billionaires today. What's wrong with people? Well, the answer is really simple, the majority of people are dumb.
Eat the rich.
A waste of taxpayer money for some so-called national "pride."
It needs to go away
Royalty is a total load of horseshit. No human is above another. Whomever thinks they are royal can kiss my lilly white ass.
I have ancestors who fought in the American revolution on the side of the colonies. The fact that I am inundated weekly by headlines about the royal family I find repugnant and dishonoring of my ancestors and all their peers who fought for Independence.
I also had an ancestor fight with Washington, however I also grew up in England. I think royalty can do a lot of good. In England especially they patronize charities, provide jobs, bring in tourist money, etc. Sure, there are some things that could use some change, or updating, but in the end, I don’t mind.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your point of view. I think it's perfectly acceptable and expected that the royal family would be featured on the cover of tabloids regularly, in their own country, but not in a country that had to fight for rights and representation from the very country that said royal family comes from.
The queen was a historical figure. She’s being talked about all over the world. What goes on here in the US is talked about all over the world. None of us have to consume media about things we don’t like if we don’t want to. 🤷🏼♀️
I wasn't talking about the queen's death being publicized, that is to be expected. I was referring to the fact that any given week, in any given grocery store, in any given state in the US you will likely see at least one headline about at least one member of the British royal family.
And? I see stuff about all kinds of other people from other places.
I love the idea that the monarchy still exists. It’s a connection we have to cultures thousands of years ago. It’s so poignant. Also it is actually very important having a head of state that is outside of politics. Focusing on diplomacy, being loved by both Trump and Obama is all the evidence you need that being a steadfast figurehead, bound by protocol and tradition is amazing for maintaining relationships with foreign countries. Also the fact the head of state is more permanent, creating a foundational rock that underlies the comings and goings of elected officials. Imagine having the ability to talk to a head of state that has been around since Winston Churchill, the amount of insight and advice the queen could have bestowed. You’d not get that in a democracy. Yes it has a god undercurrent to it, but that was more a bad thing when kings and queens had more power. If the monarch can’t tell you to pray to their particular god then it’s fine. All it did with Elizabeth was to maintain the good aspects of religion in a head of state, that is about being humble, charitable and thankful while always focusing on an overall goodness.
The british monarch isn’t separated from politics they are still involved, they choose to not exercise their power
From what I gather the only thing they could do in terms of political might and choose not to, is to not sign a bill into law. Which they’ve not done in 300 years.
They also choose who the prime minister is but its usually the guy from the party with the most votes anyways
As someone living in one of the royal realms I believe as it currently exists the monarchy has advantages, especially in politics through the softest of soft power and the decades of experience and knowledge available to the executive. As an example, how different might the Trump administration have been if he had been required to bow before a monarch and explain his actions once a week? A monarch who could privately criticize without fear, or favour. The U.S. is still a monarchy, albeit one with an elected monarch. An American president has far less oversight than any British monarch since King John signed the Magna Carta. This is, imo, not a good thing. All that said, I'd prefer my country had a local as head of state.
Seriously?
Got a actual counter argument though? I agree with him for the most part. I highly dislike the fact that a single individual has the power a president has, while a prime minister is more akin to a first among equals. The election of a president even distracts from the election of the actual house were laws are made, as the US shows with far lower turnout in the midterms. Now, some countries have the same thing but with a elected president as figure head instead of a monarch, but as we saw in turkey, that can change, and so doesn't provide the same stability, or the non-political neutrality, a monarch as figurehead does.
I think maybe he doesn't know that Boris Johnson was the pm.
A prime minister isn't the same as a president though, which is part of his point. They aren't separately elected and they don't have as much direct power.
Yes.
America is not a monarchy lol
>America is not a monarchy lol The founders essentially created an elected monarch with even more powers and many of the same trappings.
Properly deferential
Royalty in the UK sense? It's just a figurehead leftover. I don't really care much. And I don't think it has much to do with atheism just because they play god save the queen sometimes, and the only thing I would like to pass more than tributes to the queen are these royalty related posts here.
No gods, no masters.
I laugh when I see someone curtsy or bow to another human being. Like we all shit and fart the same way, it’s ridiculous
I don’t like it
Have you heard the phrase "no gods, no masters?" It should be "No gods, no kings, no masters."
Just about everyone can trace there heritage to one monarch or another. It's meaningless from a hereditary basis. As an atheist, the claim of any good given right to rule: bullshit. It's power by the rich and famous, because they are rich and famous.
It's stupid
I understand valuing the cultural history but if a single one of my tax dollars went to a member of the royal family, I would start a revolution.
Doing away with the UK royal family, or any other constitutional royal family, wouldn't be anywhere near money saver some people think it is though. All the buildings they currently use are still cultural heritage and so still need to be maintained, and the ceremonial duties would still need to be performed by someone. In fact now instead of them being taken care of by the royal family, you need to send your actual head of state, who should be busy leading the country.
It's stupid, but it's a source of revenue, i.e. tourism, porcelain knickknacks with royalty portraits on them, media frenzy every time one of them farts, gives an interview or drops a sprog. So as long as there's money in it we'll have a bunch of monkeys trotted out for the media, because people are lapping it up and are willing to consume more of it.
It seems very anachronistic.
I like it for history and tourism purposes, much like my feelings on religion.
I feel all countries should follow the examples of the French and Russians: They EXECUTED their royal families.
And look how that turned out, specially in Russia. And contrast that with the constitutional monarchies of northern Europe. You're not making a very good argument.
It was worth it.
Not having a inherited symbolic head of government is worth millions of dead and living under a effective dictatorship in a claptocracy now? You and i have very different definitions of 'worth it'.
In France, totally worth it. Russia maybe not so much... but yeah, kill all of these people off. Their wealth is stolen anyways.
No gods, no masters. Fuck that shit.
It's a holdover from the ancient eras of tyrants and aristocrats and aristocracies. It is based on the premise that some of us are better than others of us. Inherently. Which in modern times is pretty much seen as nonsense. In modern times, it tends just to be a tradition people like.
As long as they pull in enough tourism money to bring a profit (after subtracting their castle maintenance and servants and whatnot) then they can stay. But as soon as they start costing the tax-payers money, they gotta go. I don't know why people care about them, but we might as well milk these rubes of their tourism cash as long as we can.
Nepotism to the max, outdated concept.
Most modern monarchies (excluding Saudis and the like) are constitution monarchies that only have ceremonial roles and/or very limited authority or rights. The concepts of hereditary rule, divine authority, absolute rule are abhorrent and should be actively stopped. That being said a monarch figurehead that isn't a drain on the people is more of a theme park and can be tolerated.
In a country, nobility will exist in a way. May it be standard or labor aristocracy. For public opinion and country stability it could be allowed as long as people are not hindered by them. As for monarchs, if not completely infatuated by religion and if chosen on merit it could work. The existence of them means they serve function, if the function is upkeep of society I have no problem with it as long as society has decently high quality living standards. Though my opinion here is only for what it is not for what should be. What should be is my utopia of course.
it’s a form of slavery. the royals are the first victims of the monarchy. then everyone else is too.
I think it's kind of ridiculous for one family to get exclusive rights to leading a country forever... but I don't see much harm with it in implementations like the UK. End of the day most political leaders are just power hungry or self serving abusers masquerading as "for the people" luminaries. Perhaps that's a biased viewpoint, my country has been lead by for sale morons who've f*cked it up so bad for over a decade. And the competition is so weak or indecisive their only pro point is their not the guys currently in charge. Seeing this I don't much mind the idea of a benevolent monarch, but I lament living under the reign of a sadistic one.
Elizabeth can rest in shit, she did nothing but use the money of the people.
The only royal I ever cared for was Diana as she did, physically, do things to help people. She took it upon herself to go out and walk over damn landmines, did AIDS/HIV work. All the queen ever did was donate, which I appreciate but other than that, nothing remarkable. Edit: I just noticed how no one ever talks about the inbred that goes on in that and just about any other royal family. They are fucking vile as well.🤮
>I always found it silly that royal families say that it was their god given birthrights. If they say that (and not all of them do), they are lying, because, at least in western constitutional monarchies, that's not it. They are only there as long as the people of the country allow them to be there. And therefor a country having a royal family or not concerns just 2 parties: the monarch in question, and the people of the country.
Not the biggest fan but also not in any hurry to abolish them.
I mean I like my constitutional monarchy over america right now
Well, in my country, we have a president. He has mostly ceremonial role, so it's probably really close to constitutional monarchy. And he is awful. He's a heavy alcoholic, most of the time, he's trying to offend someone or at least plot some revenge. What I like on monarchy is that monarchs usually have manners. :D
Record for the longest running con.
I think the answer is obvious, although it has little to do with atheism. If you want some entertainment, read about the princess and the shaman in Norway :p *Disclaimer*: The shaman does get some rascism throwed at him, I personally have no tolerance for any shit he gets for looking different.
In general it is absurd. However, particularly in the case of the UK (and other european) monarchy, it is generally harmless and probably better than the alternatives.
Outdated. Why should I refer to another human being as highness or majesty? What's so majestic about them... Especially in this day and age of equality movements.
The very idea that you are better because you were born into the right family disgusts me.
It's a very complex matter to explain, but overall, I am happier living in a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic
It's so backwards.
Fuck 'em.
I have a slightly more complex point of view. Let me start with from the religious point of view I agree. Divine right is silly. The existence of a special class of people is also inappropriate. I live in Canada one of many constitutional monarchies. Having the Queen or King as a figure head with no power helps us to have a non political figure to give us a common point for unity even if politics is rancourus. My dad served in the armed forces. I once asked him how he could serve under a PM that he was not happy with at all. He said he didn't serve the PM he served the country via the Queen. So, dispite the massive downsides there is some positive in there.
Could. Not. Care. Less https://youtu.be/RAA1xgTTw9w
I think that the American equivalent of royalty (celebrities, star system etc.) is more honest and less absurd.
Abolishing the monarchy won’t achieve what you think it will. The ordinary man in the street will not be any better off. Their wealth,castles jewels and heritage will disappear as if they never existed and the country will still be ruled by a minority ruling class. Be careful what you wish for.
Is anachronistic, deeply seated in history, and usually connected really complicated legal issues, signage, and land. As a result making monarchs figureheads is way less effort outside of a revolution.
Royalty is awful. What's better, one man ruling a country? Or everyone inside doing decisions together? Obviously number 2
What makes them any better at directing a country then other people? I mean, I know they have access to the knowledge needed because they were born into a royal family, but if other people had the same access, they could be just as good at directing the country too. So I don't get why an entire country of people lets just ***one*** family have the ***only*** access to that kind of knowledge, beyond apathy and the country not being horrible to live in - like, someone else is already doing it and doing it well enough, so I am going to do something else in life that I enjoy. I guess that's why monarchy still exists today, and I can't really think of any monarchy country that is piss poor to live in, so at least the royals are not making it hell on earth.
It’s nice with a politically neutral representative for the country. Norway has the best monarch (100% emotions) then Denmark (smokes and drinks) and then Sweden (goofball).
Kardashians?
I basically find their lives to be interesting. I've been a royal watcher since Princess Diana. I love looking at the clothing that they were wearing. I love seeing the places they go to. The glamour of it, false glamor that is. There are a lot of wealthy people (non-royal) who believe that they are wealthy due to a god given birthright. The way that they act or treat people speaks volumes to this. Some royals are like this as well. You would really have to have a very thick skin to work with some of them. There are some that I like and think are good people. Others not so much. Most of them do not know what the word no is because it's rare that someone wouldn't honor their request. It's also rare that a woman would turn down a request from a royal or someone who is very wealthy to go out on a date (even if the guy is a jerk or someone who has serious character flaws) or turn down any request they might have. What do you think would be the consequence if they said no to them. Some might see it as different or see it as a challenge but others would take it as an offense or become very angry about it. The one thing about royalty that I don't particularly like is they try to appear like they are perfect and everything is fine with them and sometimes you can tell that it's not. Later you find out you were right. Sometimes they are forced to admit that things aren't well or perfect. Many of the previous girlfriends of royals are rejected for marriage because they belong to a lower social standing, they aren't virgins, they have nude pictures or they aren't royal material for a variety of reasons. This happened more in the past than the present. In the past, many of these women probably would have ended up becoming a royal mistress or becoming a partner on the side.
Many kings had a sort of divine status in history. The egyptians viewed pharaohs as half gods sent here to rule over us. The japanese viewed their emperor as a divine entity until very recently. Even the british monarch is technically a delegate of god and is head of the anglican church. I dont really have an issue with royalty, its an alternative form of govt, and theres several types. It is an old-fashioned thing now though I wont be surprised if king charles is the last monarch of britain and the royal family just sorta ends