4 ms·

One funny fact about the “No Kings” protests held abroad is that they were called “No Tyants” so as to not be interpreted as anti-monarchist.

izzydata 1y ago
I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.
- vunderba 1y ago
  On a marginally positive note, at least it is largely a ceremonial position and the real power lies with the prime minister/cabinet/parliament.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- aurareturn 1y ago
  They project soft power and attract tourists. I would bet that they’re actually a positive on UK’s economy and well being.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    They also knocked 15-20 percentage points off our Trump tariffs because he's so easily played; he barely even left the castle grounds this time.
- ProjectArcturis 1y ago
  At this point the British royals are basically tourist attractions. They probably generate more revenue than they consume.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    They definitely do, but a lot of this admittedly is to do with the ability they have to raise revenue on things they privately own; only a handful of Royals are on what is called the Civil List (direct payment from government for their jobs, which are not inconsiderable.)
  - Cpoll 1y ago
    I intended to object, but apparently the royals cost the government ~500MM GBP/year. Which is a lot, but less than 5% of their tourism industry, so it seems possible.
    - jopsen 1y ago
      How much of that budget is maintenance of very very old buildings?
  - relaxing 1y ago
    Tourists would also come to see their remains and preserved trappings, as they do in every other country with a former monarchy.
- BoxOfRain 1y ago
  I don't like hereditary privilege at all, but the enormous constitutional headache removing the monarchy would cause might well outweight the practical benefits of doing away with it.
- Lio 1y ago
  Are you British? Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament. The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like. I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.
  - rwmj 1y ago
    I am British. I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Charles is a crank, but a crank that I happen to agree with, so fine. But I suspect things are going to go off the rails with his failson William. > I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended. I'd be very careful about that one. Making it elected would be a terrible idea. There are some reforms that are possible, but they'd need to be very narrow (for example, limiting the size, and limiting tenure).
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      What power does the king of England have to make things go off the rails?
      - rwmj 1y ago
        He doesn't have power in that sense, but if people lose "faith" in the aura of the monarchy then things could go south quickly.
      - tim333 1y ago
        Technically he's the head of the armed forces, and also can dissolve the government. In practice with a Hitler type he could dissolve the government and there'd be new elections. I guess if the people voted the same guy back that might be the end of it but it's a bit of a failsafe to this kind of thing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973
    - exasperaited 1y ago
      > I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Right. So many of us are like this -- more Elizabethists than Royalists.
- blibble 1y ago
  as a brit it's hard to look over the pond and see that as an improvement
- exasperaited 1y ago
  > I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. Strongly suggest the USA leaves tinkering with other countries' political systems alone for at least a generation. No standing. The British are actually quite conflicted about the monarchy. It tends to be bound up in what a lot of people used to observe was the distinction between Royalism and Queenism (or Elizabethism specifically). We don't much like the institution in the same way (only narrow approval overall), but we pretty much loved the Queen as close to unconditionally as we love anyone (she's like one or two rungs down from Judi Dench and the late Terry Wogan), and would not have wanted to see it go in her lifetime because it would just have been weird. Now, not so much. Charles has yet to earn that kind of affection. Though surprisingly he is getting there, and Camilla's popularity (always a very serious problem for the monarchy) is genuinely surprising because she turns out to be a) really a friendly, kind person and b) genuinely liked by her step-family.
- redwall_hp 1y ago
  It's the other way around: they're wealthy holders of land, like the rest of the dukes and such, who control large chunks of the land in the UK and own large businesses. The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. Another example: the Duke of Westminster is worth $12B and owns a large chunk of London outright, including a ton of large, notable buildings. (Also, I think, the Twinings tea company.) There's the Crown Estate, which is controlled by the crown, but the family also owns the Duchy of Cornwall (45K acres) and the Duchy of Lancaster (45K acres), as well as numerous private holdings that are less visible. And this is predominantly highly developed city space.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    > The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. How does the UK benefit from the royal family allowing this, rather than just having a non-monarchist government that does the same thing?
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      Because it would have been sold off by a previous government. (see virtually every other money making asset.)
      - permo-w 1y ago
        see any national park?
        KaiserPro 1y ago
        How much of the UKs national parks are publicly owned? (dartmoor is owned partly by the crown)
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        But this seems like the fallacy of comparing a benevolent and somewhat reasonable monarchy to a malicious or foolish non-monarchist government. Any system can wind up with stupid people doing stupid things. The difference is if you get one stupid person in as king they could sell everything off or cause who knows what damage, whereas with a more diffuse government one person can't do as much harm. (The current situation in the US also shows how it's important to keep the power diffused rather than centralized in one person.)
- rootusrootus 1y ago
  The older I get the more I appreciate the value of a shared mythology. In some cases that is religion. Or a creed, as it was for a long time in America. But I think it is very valuable to have it for a healthy functioning society. It feels like we have lost it in America, which does not make me optimistic for the future. I wonder if the monarchy serves that role for the UK. Might be better to keep it.
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    I was a fairly ardent anti-monarchist. The problem is, I had put my faith in politicians to unite the UK. The problem is, there isn't much mileage in uniting the UK at the moment, or competence in government. The only real way that the monarchy can survive is if the kingdom stays united. Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
    - rootusrootus 1y ago
      > Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with. I definitely appreciate the idea that if you lose confidence in the PM you can fire them pretty quickly. Being stuck with a crappy president for four long years kinda sucks.
    - exasperaited 1y ago
      > Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with. I always tell people I don't actually want to risk an elected presidency until Jeremy Clarkson is too old to run for it.
      - tim333 1y ago
        I think prez Jezza would be quite entertaining.
        Lio 1y ago
        That's entirely the problem.
- jopsen 1y ago
  I view the money we pay the Danish royal family as the cost of not having a bloody revolution some 150-200 years ago. When you consider how many people and how much wealth was destroyed during/following revolutions like the French or Russian, and the compound interest of that wealth over 150 years, the pennies we pay to the royals todays is probably cheap. Just saying, if you went back in time and opted for a revolution instead of a constitutional monarchy, you'd probably be poorer today -- compound growth over 150 years is no joke.
- tim333 1y ago
  Brit here. I used to think of them as celebrities who entertain the tourists but there's a Chesterton's fence thing where you shouldn't abolish them without understanding their deterrent effect to dictators taking over. See the other European countries who abolished their monarchies and got Stalin, Putin, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and so on.
Spivak 1y ago
I think their "branding" is misguided because I would feel literally on top of the world if the people who hated me accused me of being queen. Absolutely nothing in the world would be more effective and getting me to continue down that path. I would probably start wearing a crown and trade my office for a throne room. The problem with demonizing people is that demons are badass and powerful.

izzydata 1y ago

I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.

vunderba 1y ago
On a marginally positive note, at least it is largely a ceremonial position and the real power lies with the prime minister/cabinet/parliament.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
aurareturn 1y ago
They project soft power and attract tourists. I would bet that they’re actually a positive on UK’s economy and well being.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  They also knocked 15-20 percentage points off our Trump tariffs because he's so easily played; he barely even left the castle grounds this time.
ProjectArcturis 1y ago
At this point the British royals are basically tourist attractions. They probably generate more revenue than they consume.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  They definitely do, but a lot of this admittedly is to do with the ability they have to raise revenue on things they privately own; only a handful of Royals are on what is called the Civil List (direct payment from government for their jobs, which are not inconsiderable.)
- Cpoll 1y ago
  I intended to object, but apparently the royals cost the government ~500MM GBP/year. Which is a lot, but less than 5% of their tourism industry, so it seems possible.
  - jopsen 1y ago
    How much of that budget is maintenance of very very old buildings?
- relaxing 1y ago
  Tourists would also come to see their remains and preserved trappings, as they do in every other country with a former monarchy.
BoxOfRain 1y ago
I don't like hereditary privilege at all, but the enormous constitutional headache removing the monarchy would cause might well outweight the practical benefits of doing away with it.
Lio 1y ago
Are you British? Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament. The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like. I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.
- rwmj 1y ago
  I am British. I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Charles is a crank, but a crank that I happen to agree with, so fine. But I suspect things are going to go off the rails with his failson William. > I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended. I'd be very careful about that one. Making it elected would be a terrible idea. There are some reforms that are possible, but they'd need to be very narrow (for example, limiting the size, and limiting tenure).
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    What power does the king of England have to make things go off the rails?
    - rwmj 1y ago
      He doesn't have power in that sense, but if people lose "faith" in the aura of the monarchy then things could go south quickly.
    - tim333 1y ago
      Technically he's the head of the armed forces, and also can dissolve the government. In practice with a Hitler type he could dissolve the government and there'd be new elections. I guess if the people voted the same guy back that might be the end of it but it's a bit of a failsafe to this kind of thing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    > I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Right. So many of us are like this -- more Elizabethists than Royalists.
blibble 1y ago
as a brit it's hard to look over the pond and see that as an improvement
exasperaited 1y ago
> I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. Strongly suggest the USA leaves tinkering with other countries' political systems alone for at least a generation. No standing. The British are actually quite conflicted about the monarchy. It tends to be bound up in what a lot of people used to observe was the distinction between Royalism and Queenism (or Elizabethism specifically). We don't much like the institution in the same way (only narrow approval overall), but we pretty much loved the Queen as close to unconditionally as we love anyone (she's like one or two rungs down from Judi Dench and the late Terry Wogan), and would not have wanted to see it go in her lifetime because it would just have been weird. Now, not so much. Charles has yet to earn that kind of affection. Though surprisingly he is getting there, and Camilla's popularity (always a very serious problem for the monarchy) is genuinely surprising because she turns out to be a) really a friendly, kind person and b) genuinely liked by her step-family.
redwall_hp 1y ago
It's the other way around: they're wealthy holders of land, like the rest of the dukes and such, who control large chunks of the land in the UK and own large businesses. The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. Another example: the Duke of Westminster is worth $12B and owns a large chunk of London outright, including a ton of large, notable buildings. (Also, I think, the Twinings tea company.) There's the Crown Estate, which is controlled by the crown, but the family also owns the Duchy of Cornwall (45K acres) and the Duchy of Lancaster (45K acres), as well as numerous private holdings that are less visible. And this is predominantly highly developed city space.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. How does the UK benefit from the royal family allowing this, rather than just having a non-monarchist government that does the same thing?
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    Because it would have been sold off by a previous government. (see virtually every other money making asset.)
    - permo-w 1y ago
      see any national park?
      - KaiserPro 1y ago
        How much of the UKs national parks are publicly owned? (dartmoor is owned partly by the crown)
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      But this seems like the fallacy of comparing a benevolent and somewhat reasonable monarchy to a malicious or foolish non-monarchist government. Any system can wind up with stupid people doing stupid things. The difference is if you get one stupid person in as king they could sell everything off or cause who knows what damage, whereas with a more diffuse government one person can't do as much harm. (The current situation in the US also shows how it's important to keep the power diffused rather than centralized in one person.)
rootusrootus 1y ago
The older I get the more I appreciate the value of a shared mythology. In some cases that is religion. Or a creed, as it was for a long time in America. But I think it is very valuable to have it for a healthy functioning society. It feels like we have lost it in America, which does not make me optimistic for the future. I wonder if the monarchy serves that role for the UK. Might be better to keep it.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  I was a fairly ardent anti-monarchist. The problem is, I had put my faith in politicians to unite the UK. The problem is, there isn't much mileage in uniting the UK at the moment, or competence in government. The only real way that the monarchy can survive is if the kingdom stays united. Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
  - rootusrootus 1y ago
    > Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with. I definitely appreciate the idea that if you lose confidence in the PM you can fire them pretty quickly. Being stuck with a crappy president for four long years kinda sucks.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    > Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with. I always tell people I don't actually want to risk an elected presidency until Jeremy Clarkson is too old to run for it.
    - tim333 1y ago
      I think prez Jezza would be quite entertaining.
      - Lio 1y ago
        That's entirely the problem.
jopsen 1y ago
I view the money we pay the Danish royal family as the cost of not having a bloody revolution some 150-200 years ago. When you consider how many people and how much wealth was destroyed during/following revolutions like the French or Russian, and the compound interest of that wealth over 150 years, the pennies we pay to the royals todays is probably cheap. Just saying, if you went back in time and opted for a revolution instead of a constitutional monarchy, you'd probably be poorer today -- compound growth over 150 years is no joke.
tim333 1y ago
Brit here. I used to think of them as celebrities who entertain the tourists but there's a Chesterton's fence thing where you shouldn't abolish them without understanding their deterrent effect to dictators taking over. See the other European countries who abolished their monarchies and got Stalin, Putin, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and so on.

Spivak 1y ago

I think their "branding" is misguided because I would feel literally on top of the world if the people who hated me accused me of being queen. Absolutely nothing in the world would be more effective and getting me to continue down that path. I would probably start wearing a crown and trade my office for a throne room. The problem with demonizing people is that demons are badass and powerful.