16 ms·

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the o

by jopsen 6y ago

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc.. My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy. A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper. A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution. Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :) In any case, if paying a bit of money and respect was the cost of a peaceful adoption of democracy it might have been worth it. Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Emphatic no from me on that one.
- dTal 6y ago
  Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside. On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
      - kitd 6y ago
        Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
        kitd 6y ago
        Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
        arethuza 6y ago
        I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
- pjmorris 6y ago
  The way I read the GP's comment was that the meat of the argument wasn't the 'cute' part, it was the 'avoid a violent revolution' part. Wars are usually more expensive than peace.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    We don't need a violent revolution, the people who place themselves above all other people and claim ownership of our lands and claim control of us as people could choose to denounce those positions and powers of their own will. No one is forcing them to claim sovereignty over other people, nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation.
    - derefr 6y ago
      Why would that result in the positions/powers being abolished, rather that succession kicking in? Monarchy isn't a hot potato, that the current power-holder has to directly pass on lest it get "dropped on the floor" and cease to exist. Monarch is a belief of the people that a position of power exists and is "open" to be taken by a person with a claim on "right to rule." It's a thing you can convince people you deserve, at which point they put the crown on your head rather than shooting at you for wearing it. Succession gives a peaceful path for that transfer of power, but succession isn't the default; a power vacuum being grabbed at by random nobles—usually violently!—is. If the current monarch stepped down, someone else without the same scruples would just step up. You'd have to, in effect, get every even-barely-theoretically-"righteous" noble to all agree to denounce the power, for the power to truly go away.
      - schoen 6y ago
        I have a bit of a hard time understanding this hobby, but people have traced multiple lines of succession to the same throne out for centuries, even in cases where the throne no longer exists. In many cases pretenders identified by this activity have active supporters even when they don't promote or assert their own claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rival_successions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rival_successions Like there can be some guy living in another country who says "um, that monarchy no longer even exists" or "um, my ancestors lost that war a long time ago and I don't plan to reignite it", but still has some kind of association of enthusiasts who claim to actively want him on the throne. One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria who insists that he doesn't actually think of himself as the King of England -- his relative who last actually exercised that position was deposed back in 1688 -- but that doesn't stop other people from thinking of him that way. :-) Wikipedia has several dozen people listed in the official present-day line of succession to the British throne and notes that a genealogist has claimed to identify over 1,000 people in that line. It's possible to imagine a France-like republican future for Britain in which people's elaborately detailed and extensively researched pretense claims are not very interesting news for the overwhelming majority of the population, but it probably wouldn't be something that would happen overnight in response to a couple of abdications when a huge number of British people and a substantial number of people with claims to the throne are actively enthusiastic about the monarchy.
- iab 6y ago
  Snapped my neck nodding too hard
pkd 6y ago
False dichotomy. You don't have to sign up for a contract that give them even ceremonial powers forever or behead them in grotesque violence. It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.
- ta2987 6y ago
  The problem with not killing potential monarchs is that their continued existence can be perceived as a latent threat to reassert their divine right to rule at any time in the future. In my book, assuming the risk of an occasional beheading is part of the job of being a monarch.
- jopsen 6y ago
  > It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves. Sure, it might be possible to get a better deal. Or it might not, is it worth the risk? Giving a ceremonial role is a pretty solid carrot. And compared to violent revolution it's dirt cheap to offer :) I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince the Danish king to sign the Danish constitution in 1849. It's not a given that it could have happened peacefully. In the end, it might not last forever anyways. It'll last so long as the monarchy remains popular, because at the end of the day the votes can change the constitution.
mhh__ 6y ago
What? We can castrate the royals, then keep them ceremonially.
cmroanirgo 6y ago
It might be interesting to some that there is some possibility that QE2 isn't the rightful monarch anyhow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th_Earl_of_Loudoun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th...
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  Possession is 9/10th of the law... Every single now living monarch sits on their throne because an ancestor of theirs took it from someone else. In this case, might makes right.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted. His adoptive father's father was elected king (after Russian pressure). Edit: The election happened as the king before him had no heirs.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      > Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted. Well, Karl XIV became king because he was elected by parliament, and then Karl XIII formally adopted him to make him and his family royal, not the other way around. Either way, his son and grandson both married women that were descendants of Gustav Vasa in an attempt to bolster their claims, and that guy definitely took the throne by force. So yes, you're right in that not every current reigning monarch has their position due to conquest, but most of them. And then that doesn't really matter, because the point I was making is that "rightful" is actually bullshit, it's 100% made up. It's political theater created to make it harder for presumptive conquerors to keep a throne, even if they have the might necessary to take it.
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Seems like the right step then, might be to stage an insurrection, depose the queen, and take the throne, eh? I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.
jtolmar 6y ago
> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Preferential hiring if they want a job as a reenactor or tour guide.
scoopertrooper 6y ago
Bribing the monarch into being a figurehead is no guarantee either. For instance, the monarchy didn't stop the rise of Mussolini or Franco.
- labster 6y ago
  Monarchies tend to want to continue the family business. I’d expect them to learn from the tragedies of the 20th century. As a result of the fascist movements, the Italian monarchy lost the crown and the Spanish lost it but only recovered it because of Franco’s whim. If I were a king, I’d use whatever reserve powers I had to oppose that kind of future for my dynasty.
- omerta 6y ago
  In that article, from an 80 old day comment of mine, you did not understand my comment. You told me to read the article. You don't understand what I mean by justification. There is a difference between prescription and description. That article was descriptive, not prescriptive. You cannot justify universals if you believe only particulars exist. You can only justify universals if you are willing to accept a metaphysical reality and provide a grounding for the metaphysical. Not everything is proven in the same way. The scientific method is good for studying particulars, but it cannot prove a universal. For example, science assumes the laws of logic in its process, which it cannot prove or provide a justification for. Also the scientific method cannot justify the scientific method. You on the other hand will probably say "because it works." Something working is a value-judgement, and that is not independent of ethics. It also assumes induction and regularity in nature, but you obviously haven't heard about the problem of induction. Science cannot provide a justification for induction. Science will also claim things like we know things from observation or what is in the sense data. Did we observe that or sense that in our sense data? I would say not everything is proven the same way. You can use science for some stuff, but not everything.
- jopsen 6y ago
  Nope, it's no guarantee. But it might it improve the odds? Starting with a violent revolution tends to put violent people in charge of your democracy. I suppose it worked reasonably for the Americans.
idclip 6y ago
Not trying to put you down. I see the thinking behind your rationale, it is also somewhat detached from human emotional and political reality. Being exposed to the atrocities of /most/ (im no expert) modern day monarchs and being an arab in the middle east, i find it REALLY hard to call what they do cute, or something math and money could fix. These problems, even dänmarks, evolved through strife, injustice and corruption. Monarchies are necessary as-long as the region needs them .. i see politics more like an evolutionary process where monarchy is part of a nations dev stages. I actually wish you were right.
- jopsen 6y ago
  In Denmark we have a constitutional monarchy... And while the constitution mentions the "King" many places. We now have a Queen, and the role of the monarchy is entirely ceremonial. Back in 1849 the Danish king signed the constitution, making the role of the king ceremonial, and giving us democracy. Sure, this was in the aftermath of the French revolution. And hadn't the Danish king signed away his power we would likely have had a revolution. Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad? In Britain they don't have a constitution the same way. But I see many events throughout british history where the crown gradually signed away power.
  - idclip 6y ago
    > Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad? Not saying its bad, just saying they wont do it. Theyre already rich beyond imagining- sadism and abuse are rampant, and the public doesnt seem to care. Like seriously, how much cash will it take to convince the saudis to go ceremonial? Meanwhile another gay person is hung and a dissident is assassinated. That all said .. seems to be what the region “wants” - displeasure isnt high enough yet for regular folk to demand change. In arabic there is a saying “the people earn the ruler they deserve”. Beyond the short term moral qualm .. its just a step in the development of these countries - it could - and i was - worse. Better wiser days will come.
fit2rule 6y ago
>On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) It doesn't matter how attractive the fascists are, they are still fascists.
roenxi 6y ago
It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business. But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than radical change.
- Guthur 6y ago
  And parliaments aren't? It's not actually clear to me which is better or worse over the long term. Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly. I postulate that striping the royals of wealth will make no one here materially better off.
  - psychoslave 6y ago
    There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      If you think the House of Commons was actually common men like you or I you'd be sorely mistaken, it was Knights and landed people (and i don't think very much has changed there). Make no bones about the UK parlimentary body, it is not of the "people" if that's what you are into.
      - psychoslave 6y ago
        Oh, no. I just wanted to share some nuance on what can stand behind a "measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property." And it’s not like "civilization" was something one might really believe to stand on fairness, reciprocity and mutual care. That kind of things can survive in civilizations, and probably civilizations can’t survive themselves without leaving some room for these feelings.
jimbob45 6y ago
The cutesiness of the Royal family is pragmatic as well. She can take some of the State Dinners that would otherwise go to the PM. It seems silly but the US has to have the President go to everything and time is money to the President.
erk__ 6y ago
Last time a Danish monarch used any kind of political power it was close to end in a revolution with a general strike. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/danish-workers-strike-electoral-reform-easter-crisis-1920-1920 https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/danish-workers-str...
ampdepolymerase 6y ago
You cannot divorce Syria's situation from regional geopolitics. Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. Ultimately most of the problems stem from the hard realpolitik fact that the Syrian state have little military power to wield against significant adversaries. Their newfound alliance with Russia may be useful against rebels and terrorists and negating the meddling of the French and US, but it gets problematic when it comes to defending against Russian interests like Turkey and Israel. Syria is being carved up right now and no amount of bribing would help. Take a look at Kashmir if you want a better example of how to properly put down a protest.
- jopsen 6y ago
  > Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. True, I don't think anyone was convinced Assad would step down if given more time or money. Just saying, that in that calculus offering a ceremonial role is still a cheap bargain -- assuming you can get the people in power to take the offer -- that's not a given.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
After watching The Crown (it's fiction I know), being royal seems to me to be incredibly tedious, boring and downright limiting. Sure you can jet off to a nice country, but you are very limited in what you can do, where you can go and who you can talk to. Mess up just once and the tabloid media will be all over you. Honestly would much rather be poor and free than be "royal". I do think they serve a purpose, and tradition is important to many people (I know the progressive-types want to pull all that down).
knorker 6y ago
"Cute". Defending state supported inherited power, which has already shown to be corrupted and have abused that power, by saying it's "cute" is like saying pirates murdering and stealing are romantisised to being cute. Don't confuse watching and enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean with thinking it's a good idea to murder and steal on merchant ships. Russian oligarchs and mafioso also have their charm, but don't confuse The Godfather part II with a good idea.
- jopsen 6y ago
  That's a very fair argument :) And maybe one day it will be time to do away with it.. but it does have a cuteness factor to it. And politicians are unlikely to want to burn political capital doing away with a popular cultural institution. So as long as they behave, remain popular, I doubt the monarchy will go away.
  - knorker 6y ago
    As mentioned elsewhere, they have actually not behaved. And we've not even mentioned yet Prince Andrew's connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and how he's being allowed to get away with it because of his family.
psychoslave 6y ago
> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) You might probably buy far more and far better distributed amount of cuteness without a royal family. > A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper. Nothing is without cost and risk. Keeping a royal family includes a cost and it rise the risk inherent with any concentrated political/wealth power. It is not absolutely safer on all regard to go for a different kind of government of course, it’s a different trade-off. >A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution. First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. The question is, if the people decide by means of a referendum to get rid of privileges, will the privileged few accept without trying to use violence to maintain their position? Actually in France, they are several pretender to the throne[1]. It’s just that virtually nobody care. >Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :) Maths on what? Societies are complex systems with many parameters whose evolution is subject to the butterfly effect. You can throw numbers in-between to decorate any thesis you would like to defend, it doesn’t give it any meaningful scientific credibility. > Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky. You say that like there was some kind of strictly internal consensus in the people of Syria to go for what happened rather than paying Assad. That sounds like an absurdly simplistic exposition of reality. [1] https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/07/08/qui-serait-l-heritier-au-trone-de-france_1738150/ https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/07/08/qui-serait-l-...
- jopsen 6y ago
  > First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. How do you replace the people in power peacefully, if they don't want to go? It generally works out best if you offer them a carrot. My point was merely that if it avoids violent revolution, the size of the carrot your offering might not matter so much :)
lb1lf 6y ago
-Living in Norway, whose monarchy is basically reduced to being on hand for when we need someone to officially open a new bridge to nowhere or provide apolitical statements in time of need, I am a pragmatic monarchist. In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had. Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around. Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners. Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course). The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?
Lio 6y ago
Worth remembering that we in the UK have already had a French style revolution with the monarch being decapitated in 1649. It was considered a "bad move" and his son was restored to the role of head of state about 12 years later to correct it. :P The idea of a powerless head of state has always appealed to me. I can't think of anything worse than someone like Johnson assuming that role.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
calgoo 6y ago
Here in Spain the royal family is also paid in a similar way as Denmark and Sweden. However, they are corrupt and make deals with SA and other nations. They go on elephant hunts and are above the law as the Spanish secret service / police will try to defend them as much as possible. When something actually does come to light, they are allowed to leave the country without limit and live in SA with their millions of tax free money. I don't see it as cute, more as a cancer. Sometimes they are benign but you still want to get rid of it in-case it actually ends up killing you.
- jazzyk 6y ago
  It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs). But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    Hunting elephants is legal and can help protection for the species. The real problem is in the context. Is going to an african tax heaven with some questionable people, suffering the second strange accident to the royal family in a short time, and justify the travel later claiming that he wanted to shoot an elephant. EU project is only partially compatible with monarchy, you either have the power or don't and monarchs can only slowly lose more and more power to bankers with time. Thus, the current anti monarchy trend in many countries of Europe would be expectable. British probably see it coming and jumped of the train.
ric2b 6y ago
> My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy. The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy.
- jopsen 6y ago
  > The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy. True, now we're just paying interest on a purchase made generations ago. Is that so bad? I assume it'll go away if the monarchy becomes unpopular.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    > Is that so bad? Is funneling tons of taxpayer money to some useless family of millionaires bad? Yes, I think so. It's a moral failure and should just stop.
posterboy 6y ago
erm, the crown pays you, the currency was even named the crown?!?

by jopsen 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Emphatic no from me on that one.

dTal 6y ago
Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside. On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
    - kitd 6y ago
      Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
        kitd 6y ago
        Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
        arethuza 6y ago
        I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
pjmorris 6y ago
The way I read the GP's comment was that the meat of the argument wasn't the 'cute' part, it was the 'avoid a violent revolution' part. Wars are usually more expensive than peace.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  We don't need a violent revolution, the people who place themselves above all other people and claim ownership of our lands and claim control of us as people could choose to denounce those positions and powers of their own will. No one is forcing them to claim sovereignty over other people, nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation.
  - derefr 6y ago
    Why would that result in the positions/powers being abolished, rather that succession kicking in? Monarchy isn't a hot potato, that the current power-holder has to directly pass on lest it get "dropped on the floor" and cease to exist. Monarch is a belief of the people that a position of power exists and is "open" to be taken by a person with a claim on "right to rule." It's a thing you can convince people you deserve, at which point they put the crown on your head rather than shooting at you for wearing it. Succession gives a peaceful path for that transfer of power, but succession isn't the default; a power vacuum being grabbed at by random nobles—usually violently!—is. If the current monarch stepped down, someone else without the same scruples would just step up. You'd have to, in effect, get every even-barely-theoretically-"righteous" noble to all agree to denounce the power, for the power to truly go away.
    - schoen 6y ago
      I have a bit of a hard time understanding this hobby, but people have traced multiple lines of succession to the same throne out for centuries, even in cases where the throne no longer exists. In many cases pretenders identified by this activity have active supporters even when they don't promote or assert their own claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rival_successions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rival_successions Like there can be some guy living in another country who says "um, that monarchy no longer even exists" or "um, my ancestors lost that war a long time ago and I don't plan to reignite it", but still has some kind of association of enthusiasts who claim to actively want him on the throne. One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria who insists that he doesn't actually think of himself as the King of England -- his relative who last actually exercised that position was deposed back in 1688 -- but that doesn't stop other people from thinking of him that way. :-) Wikipedia has several dozen people listed in the official present-day line of succession to the British throne and notes that a genealogist has claimed to identify over 1,000 people in that line. It's possible to imagine a France-like republican future for Britain in which people's elaborately detailed and extensively researched pretense claims are not very interesting news for the overwhelming majority of the population, but it probably wouldn't be something that would happen overnight in response to a couple of abdications when a huge number of British people and a substantial number of people with claims to the throne are actively enthusiastic about the monarchy.
iab 6y ago
Snapped my neck nodding too hard

pkd 6y ago

False dichotomy. You don't have to sign up for a contract that give them even ceremonial powers forever or behead them in grotesque violence. It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

ta2987 6y ago
The problem with not killing potential monarchs is that their continued existence can be perceived as a latent threat to reassert their divine right to rule at any time in the future. In my book, assuming the risk of an occasional beheading is part of the job of being a monarch.
jopsen 6y ago
> It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves. Sure, it might be possible to get a better deal. Or it might not, is it worth the risk? Giving a ceremonial role is a pretty solid carrot. And compared to violent revolution it's dirt cheap to offer :) I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince the Danish king to sign the Danish constitution in 1849. It's not a given that it could have happened peacefully. In the end, it might not last forever anyways. It'll last so long as the monarchy remains popular, because at the end of the day the votes can change the constitution.

mhh__ 6y ago

What? We can castrate the royals, then keep them ceremonially.

cmroanirgo 6y ago

It might be interesting to some that there is some possibility that QE2 isn't the rightful monarch anyhow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th_Earl_of_Loudoun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th...

henrikschroder 6y ago
Possession is 9/10th of the law... Every single now living monarch sits on their throne because an ancestor of theirs took it from someone else. In this case, might makes right.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted. His adoptive father's father was elected king (after Russian pressure). Edit: The election happened as the king before him had no heirs.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    > Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted. Well, Karl XIV became king because he was elected by parliament, and then Karl XIII formally adopted him to make him and his family royal, not the other way around. Either way, his son and grandson both married women that were descendants of Gustav Vasa in an attempt to bolster their claims, and that guy definitely took the throne by force. So yes, you're right in that not every current reigning monarch has their position due to conquest, but most of them. And then that doesn't really matter, because the point I was making is that "rightful" is actually bullshit, it's 100% made up. It's political theater created to make it harder for presumptive conquerors to keep a throne, even if they have the might necessary to take it.
- woofie11 6y ago
  Seems like the right step then, might be to stage an insurrection, depose the queen, and take the throne, eh? I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.

jtolmar 6y ago

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Preferential hiring if they want a job as a reenactor or tour guide.

scoopertrooper 6y ago

Bribing the monarch into being a figurehead is no guarantee either. For instance, the monarchy didn't stop the rise of Mussolini or Franco.

labster 6y ago
Monarchies tend to want to continue the family business. I’d expect them to learn from the tragedies of the 20th century. As a result of the fascist movements, the Italian monarchy lost the crown and the Spanish lost it but only recovered it because of Franco’s whim. If I were a king, I’d use whatever reserve powers I had to oppose that kind of future for my dynasty.
omerta 6y ago
In that article, from an 80 old day comment of mine, you did not understand my comment. You told me to read the article. You don't understand what I mean by justification. There is a difference between prescription and description. That article was descriptive, not prescriptive. You cannot justify universals if you believe only particulars exist. You can only justify universals if you are willing to accept a metaphysical reality and provide a grounding for the metaphysical. Not everything is proven in the same way. The scientific method is good for studying particulars, but it cannot prove a universal. For example, science assumes the laws of logic in its process, which it cannot prove or provide a justification for. Also the scientific method cannot justify the scientific method. You on the other hand will probably say "because it works." Something working is a value-judgement, and that is not independent of ethics. It also assumes induction and regularity in nature, but you obviously haven't heard about the problem of induction. Science cannot provide a justification for induction. Science will also claim things like we know things from observation or what is in the sense data. Did we observe that or sense that in our sense data? I would say not everything is proven the same way. You can use science for some stuff, but not everything.
jopsen 6y ago
Nope, it's no guarantee. But it might it improve the odds? Starting with a violent revolution tends to put violent people in charge of your democracy. I suppose it worked reasonably for the Americans.

idclip 6y ago

Not trying to put you down. I see the thinking behind your rationale, it is also somewhat detached from human emotional and political reality. Being exposed to the atrocities of /most/ (im no expert) modern day monarchs and being an arab in the middle east, i find it REALLY hard to call what they do cute, or something math and money could fix. These problems, even dänmarks, evolved through strife, injustice and corruption. Monarchies are necessary as-long as the region needs them .. i see politics more like an evolutionary process where monarchy is part of a nations dev stages. I actually wish you were right.

jopsen 6y ago
In Denmark we have a constitutional monarchy... And while the constitution mentions the "King" many places. We now have a Queen, and the role of the monarchy is entirely ceremonial. Back in 1849 the Danish king signed the constitution, making the role of the king ceremonial, and giving us democracy. Sure, this was in the aftermath of the French revolution. And hadn't the Danish king signed away his power we would likely have had a revolution. Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad? In Britain they don't have a constitution the same way. But I see many events throughout british history where the crown gradually signed away power.
- idclip 6y ago
  > Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad? Not saying its bad, just saying they wont do it. Theyre already rich beyond imagining- sadism and abuse are rampant, and the public doesnt seem to care. Like seriously, how much cash will it take to convince the saudis to go ceremonial? Meanwhile another gay person is hung and a dissident is assassinated. That all said .. seems to be what the region “wants” - displeasure isnt high enough yet for regular folk to demand change. In arabic there is a saying “the people earn the ruler they deserve”. Beyond the short term moral qualm .. its just a step in the development of these countries - it could - and i was - worse. Better wiser days will come.

fit2rule 6y ago

>On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) It doesn't matter how attractive the fascists are, they are still fascists.

roenxi 6y ago

It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business. But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than radical change.

Guthur 6y ago
And parliaments aren't? It's not actually clear to me which is better or worse over the long term. Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly. I postulate that striping the royals of wealth will make no one here materially better off.
- psychoslave 6y ago
  There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    If you think the House of Commons was actually common men like you or I you'd be sorely mistaken, it was Knights and landed people (and i don't think very much has changed there). Make no bones about the UK parlimentary body, it is not of the "people" if that's what you are into.
    - psychoslave 6y ago
      Oh, no. I just wanted to share some nuance on what can stand behind a "measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property." And it’s not like "civilization" was something one might really believe to stand on fairness, reciprocity and mutual care. That kind of things can survive in civilizations, and probably civilizations can’t survive themselves without leaving some room for these feelings.

jimbob45 6y ago

The cutesiness of the Royal family is pragmatic as well. She can take some of the State Dinners that would otherwise go to the PM. It seems silly but the US has to have the President go to everything and time is money to the President.

erk__ 6y ago

Last time a Danish monarch used any kind of political power it was close to end in a revolution with a general strike. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/danish-workers-strike-electoral-reform-easter-crisis-1920-1920 https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/danish-workers-str...

ampdepolymerase 6y ago

You cannot divorce Syria's situation from regional geopolitics. Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. Ultimately most of the problems stem from the hard realpolitik fact that the Syrian state have little military power to wield against significant adversaries. Their newfound alliance with Russia may be useful against rebels and terrorists and negating the meddling of the French and US, but it gets problematic when it comes to defending against Russian interests like Turkey and Israel. Syria is being carved up right now and no amount of bribing would help. Take a look at Kashmir if you want a better example of how to properly put down a protest.

jopsen 6y ago
> Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. True, I don't think anyone was convinced Assad would step down if given more time or money. Just saying, that in that calculus offering a ceremonial role is still a cheap bargain -- assuming you can get the people in power to take the offer -- that's not a given.

CodeGlitch 6y ago

After watching The Crown (it's fiction I know), being royal seems to me to be incredibly tedious, boring and downright limiting. Sure you can jet off to a nice country, but you are very limited in what you can do, where you can go and who you can talk to. Mess up just once and the tabloid media will be all over you. Honestly would much rather be poor and free than be "royal". I do think they serve a purpose, and tradition is important to many people (I know the progressive-types want to pull all that down).

knorker 6y ago

"Cute". Defending state supported inherited power, which has already shown to be corrupted and have abused that power, by saying it's "cute" is like saying pirates murdering and stealing are romantisised to being cute. Don't confuse watching and enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean with thinking it's a good idea to murder and steal on merchant ships. Russian oligarchs and mafioso also have their charm, but don't confuse The Godfather part II with a good idea.

jopsen 6y ago
That's a very fair argument :) And maybe one day it will be time to do away with it.. but it does have a cuteness factor to it. And politicians are unlikely to want to burn political capital doing away with a popular cultural institution. So as long as they behave, remain popular, I doubt the monarchy will go away.
- knorker 6y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere, they have actually not behaved. And we've not even mentioned yet Prince Andrew's connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and how he's being allowed to get away with it because of his family.

psychoslave 6y ago

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) You might probably buy far more and far better distributed amount of cuteness without a royal family. > A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper. Nothing is without cost and risk. Keeping a royal family includes a cost and it rise the risk inherent with any concentrated political/wealth power. It is not absolutely safer on all regard to go for a different kind of government of course, it’s a different trade-off. >A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution. First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. The question is, if the people decide by means of a referendum to get rid of privileges, will the privileged few accept without trying to use violence to maintain their position? Actually in France, they are several pretender to the throne[1]. It’s just that virtually nobody care. >Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :) Maths on what? Societies are complex systems with many parameters whose evolution is subject to the butterfly effect. You can throw numbers in-between to decorate any thesis you would like to defend, it doesn’t give it any meaningful scientific credibility. > Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky. You say that like there was some kind of strictly internal consensus in the people of Syria to go for what happened rather than paying Assad. That sounds like an absurdly simplistic exposition of reality. [1] https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/07/08/qui-serait-l-heritier-au-trone-de-france_1738150/ https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/07/08/qui-serait-l-...

jopsen 6y ago
> First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. How do you replace the people in power peacefully, if they don't want to go? It generally works out best if you offer them a carrot. My point was merely that if it avoids violent revolution, the size of the carrot your offering might not matter so much :)

lb1lf 6y ago

-Living in Norway, whose monarchy is basically reduced to being on hand for when we need someone to officially open a new bridge to nowhere or provide apolitical statements in time of need, I am a pragmatic monarchist. In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had. Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around. Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners. Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course). The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?

Lio 6y ago

Worth remembering that we in the UK have already had a French style revolution with the monarch being decapitated in 1649. It was considered a "bad move" and his son was restored to the role of head of state about 12 years later to correct it. :P The idea of a powerless head of state has always appealed to me. I can't think of anything worse than someone like Johnson assuming that role.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

calgoo 6y ago

Here in Spain the royal family is also paid in a similar way as Denmark and Sweden. However, they are corrupt and make deals with SA and other nations. They go on elephant hunts and are above the law as the Spanish secret service / police will try to defend them as much as possible. When something actually does come to light, they are allowed to leave the country without limit and live in SA with their millions of tax free money. I don't see it as cute, more as a cancer. Sometimes they are benign but you still want to get rid of it in-case it actually ends up killing you.

jazzyk 6y ago
It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs). But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Hunting elephants is legal and can help protection for the species. The real problem is in the context. Is going to an african tax heaven with some questionable people, suffering the second strange accident to the royal family in a short time, and justify the travel later claiming that he wanted to shoot an elephant. EU project is only partially compatible with monarchy, you either have the power or don't and monarchs can only slowly lose more and more power to bankers with time. Thus, the current anti monarchy trend in many countries of Europe would be expectable. British probably see it coming and jumped of the train.

ric2b 6y ago

> My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy. The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy.

jopsen 6y ago
> The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy. True, now we're just paying interest on a purchase made generations ago. Is that so bad? I assume it'll go away if the monarchy becomes unpopular.
- ric2b 6y ago
  > Is that so bad? Is funneling tons of taxpayer money to some useless family of millionaires bad? Yes, I think so. It's a moral failure and should just stop.

posterboy 6y ago

erm, the crown pays you, the currency was even named the crown?!?