3 ms·

No this is wrong. Even from a cynical, financial perspective, it's and ideological statement not grounded in economic reality. The UK Royals bring vastly more

No this is wrong. Even from a cynical, financial perspective, it's and ideological statement not grounded in economic reality. The UK Royals bring vastly more value to the UK in prestige, soft power and tourism, than the paltry sum they are afforded, almost all of which is effectively state related. The amount spent on UK Royals is negligible in the context of the overall budget - and it's spent on the 'office', not on the individuals. From a 'Marketing ROI' perspective, there's probably no better investment. More practically, those individuals actually do a 'job' - they as individuals are not the same thing as their positions; it's a fallacy to suggest that 'They Get Money!'. They don't. The effective 'Branch of Government' does. Do you think that arbitrary billionaires would sink $50M into 'Windsor Castle Repairs'? Of course not. Almost all of the expenditures are effectively state related. Moreover, these 'capitalist insinuations' are effectively falshoods. The Firm has to stay a country mile away from any kind of real business dealings. Do you know how much The Firm could actually rake in, if they wanted to / were allowed to? They're worth many Billions in brand endorsements. Prince William shilling for Land Rover? Kate for British Airways? That alone is north of $100M over even a short period. In Canada, they have a Governor General - nobody would suggest that their offices and residence, and all the fanfare, amount to some kind of 'property'. And all of that doesn't even touch on the historical aspects of the institutions. These arguments are grounded in a kind of populist jealousy - The Queen 'does more' for the UK than say, LeBron James does for the US. And he's now a billionaire, and can spend that Billion any way he likes. The Queen really can't. 'Elizabeth' is not free to spend 'The Queen's' money. 'The Politics of Obedience' is equally populist: "why is it that a minority of rulers can remain in power over a majority of subjects who pay all the taxes." ? Because the leadership of any group will always be relatively small, irrespective of their means of ascension to power, legitimacy, competency. The French Revolution, as a matter of focus on 'rights' was a good idea, but concern over the King's Estate was populist stupidity. King Louis 'stuff' never really did cost that much, his wars, i.e. 'affairs of state' were what always killed the Treasury. 'Repairs to Windsor Castle', in relative terms, cost almost nothing. As a really crude analogy, UK Royals are like a 'living' version of Notre Dame Cathedral. It's not like even the most ardent anti-Catholics would want to tear it down 'because maintenance costs!'. The older I become, the more I become suspicious of the absolutist orientation we have towards many of our modern values. We want to replace everything with some kind of egalitarian variation of TikTok. It's all nice and fun, but I'm becoming more inclined to think almost anything with any degree of actual authenticity should be preserved and upheld. I'm not what you would call a 'Royalist' but I think we're far better off with them than not, even though I accept there are good arguments either way.

petre 4y ago
> The French Revolution, as a matter of focus on 'rights' was a good idea, but concern over the King's Estate was populist stupidity. I like what the French have done with their monarchy. They preserved the king's estate as the state's estate. Everyone can now visit the Palace of Versailles - access is not restricted to the royal family. I'm not saying the British should end the monarchy and demote the royal family. It's their problem, they should handle it as they see fit. I am just saying I admire the French for setting things straight and not tolerating a priviledged class. Of course there are still priviledged former aristocrats in France, but still it's to a lesser extent than in the UK, where a few landlords lease out housing lots in London.
- jollybean 4y ago
  " I admire the French for setting things straight and not tolerating a priviledged class." There is basically no difference at all between the current degree of classicism in Germany, France or UK. They have an 'egalitarian' / 'Republican' attitude, supposedly, but it's all just the same. UK has Oxbridge, and France has their 'Grande Ecoles' - and the attendance of these schools by various classes is about the same. 'English Nobility' etc. don't have that much impact on the reality of UK institutions, operations etc.. Again - and this is kind of what I'm hinting at in my answer: both classicm and anti-classism ... it's mostly preformative. The UK had a 'revolution' in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and subsequent revolutions with War of the Roses, and Cromwell's Republic. Mini revolutions throughout the ages that put the Monarchs power in about the right place. In France, the King had enormous power (and the Church etc..) and so things got to a revolutionary breaking point. But in reality they are just about the same. Even in Germany. Now drop this one in your pipe to smoke: 'Gini' coefficient, i.e. measure of inequality, tend to be 'more equal' in European countries with current/historical monarchies than in the USA, supposedly 'land of the free'. So UK, Demnark, Sweden, Netherlands - all Constitutional Monarchies, are much more 'egalitarian' than the US, which has enshrined in it's principles, a kind of 'egalitarianism'. I'm not a fan of 'Critical Theory' but that is absolutely a subject for 'Critical Theorists' to deconstruct, in that the 'narrative' of 'freedom' in the US (and France) doesn't really line up with reality very well.
jjeaff 4y ago

petre 4y ago

> The French Revolution, as a matter of focus on 'rights' was a good idea, but concern over the King's Estate was populist stupidity. I like what the French have done with their monarchy. They preserved the king's estate as the state's estate. Everyone can now visit the Palace of Versailles - access is not restricted to the royal family. I'm not saying the British should end the monarchy and demote the royal family. It's their problem, they should handle it as they see fit. I am just saying I admire the French for setting things straight and not tolerating a priviledged class. Of course there are still priviledged former aristocrats in France, but still it's to a lesser extent than in the UK, where a few landlords lease out housing lots in London.

jollybean 4y ago
" I admire the French for setting things straight and not tolerating a priviledged class." There is basically no difference at all between the current degree of classicism in Germany, France or UK. They have an 'egalitarian' / 'Republican' attitude, supposedly, but it's all just the same. UK has Oxbridge, and France has their 'Grande Ecoles' - and the attendance of these schools by various classes is about the same. 'English Nobility' etc. don't have that much impact on the reality of UK institutions, operations etc.. Again - and this is kind of what I'm hinting at in my answer: both classicm and anti-classism ... it's mostly preformative. The UK had a 'revolution' in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and subsequent revolutions with War of the Roses, and Cromwell's Republic. Mini revolutions throughout the ages that put the Monarchs power in about the right place. In France, the King had enormous power (and the Church etc..) and so things got to a revolutionary breaking point. But in reality they are just about the same. Even in Germany. Now drop this one in your pipe to smoke: 'Gini' coefficient, i.e. measure of inequality, tend to be 'more equal' in European countries with current/historical monarchies than in the USA, supposedly 'land of the free'. So UK, Demnark, Sweden, Netherlands - all Constitutional Monarchies, are much more 'egalitarian' than the US, which has enshrined in it's principles, a kind of 'egalitarianism'. I'm not a fan of 'Critical Theory' but that is absolutely a subject for 'Critical Theorists' to deconstruct, in that the 'narrative' of 'freedom' in the US (and France) doesn't really line up with reality very well.

jjeaff 4y ago