I've noticed alot of hate for monarchies, but is it that annoying that it has to be forcefully removed? Most countries with Monarchies doesn't seem to do much, other than looking good. It seems like only the british dislike it, because the Scandinavians seems to be okay with their royal families. They have no power, but they help to bring in money and tourist into the country, so its good, isn't it?
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Plus, the royal families doesn't sit in their thrones all day, they serve in the military, for the guys. But still, people still seem to think that they're not doing enough.
The vast majority in England fucking [I]love[/I] the monarchy.
Personally I detest them because they possess huge excesses of power; almost all of it gained illegitimately. Their political influence may be relatively non-existent, but they still possess vile amounts of wealth and cultural influence purely in virtue of exploitation. There's no conceivable defence for monarchism as a political model, so why should we express anything but repugnance at it lingering as a cultural symbol? I can't even begin to imagine why people insist on celebrating their existence in this country.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=shian;36379459]Plus, the royal families doesn't sit in their thrones all day, they serve in the military, for the guys. But still, people still seem to think that they're not doing enough.[/QUOTE]
Just because they're not [I]entirely[/I] worthless, does it mean they deserve to live in a place like this?
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Sandringham_House_garden.jpg[/img_thumb]
It's simply not possible for someone to be that valuable a person to have such exorbitant excesses of wealth and power legitimately.
Even if they make money for the country via tourism, they live glamorous lives for being related to someone.
Also realizes America loves emphasis on hard work and "self made man" work ethics
There is a reason why people often insult others by comparing them to royalty (it's the concept of being entitled to all this crap for nothing)
But people also forget that its not easy being in that lifestyle. You do have alot of work to do.
Bad history with other nations also comes into effect, when the Queen finally did visit Ireland as a "foreign dignitary" it was a really big deal. The first world war could be also seen as a argument against absolute monarchies, and it also led to their mass downfall across Europe and beyond. The majority of monarchies are neutered by today's comparisons, but they are still a reminder of those unjust times of feudalism, bad wars and excess.
The "they bring us tourism revenue" doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is in fact a false dilemma. It's not a choice between having a monarchy and tourism money, or having no monarchy and less tourism money. We could still get tourism money by investing what would have gone to the monarchy into other things - that's the third option. Besides, France doesn't have a monarchy anymore, but they still get plenty of dosh because the remains of the castles are still interesting.
If we lived in a Republic and someone said "hey let's institute a system where one family gets ludicrous amounts of taxpayer money and influences the highest echelons of government, and there's no way for people to choose democratically what is done with the money, because it will bring us all these wonderful benefits like, uh, tourism", they'd be laughed at. It's an example of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias]status quo bias.[/url]
i don't like the historical context of the royal family. they pretty much represent the worst of british history. i don't much care for fetishising them.
Too bad because those families own all of the lands and castles and mansions that you love to hate. Its the same as saying "I hate rich people because they have big houses and nice things." Sure you can hate the royal families because they might have gained their wealth illegitimately, but those deeds were all done hundreds of years ago by long dead people.
Now, I still believe that they represent a destructive and oppressive part of history and than any modern nations should remove all influence of a monarchy from its government if it wants to be taken seriously. Regardless of whether or not a monarch has any real power, the fact that they have hereditary title which gives them power shows that oppressive dictatorship is being accepted and celebrated in today's time.
[QUOTE=shian;36379662]But people also forget that its not easy being in that lifestyle. You do have alot of work to do.[/QUOTE]
There's people who do the same kind of work (Being head of state, or ambassadors) and they don't get as much money, power, etc as a family of self-appointed royalty.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36379538]The vast majority in England fucking [I]love[/I] the monarchy.[/QUOTE]
Curiously, where I live (Scotland) a lot of people detest the monarchy. I have had friends on Facebook openly talk about how awful it is.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36379755]i don't like the historical context of the royal family. they pretty much represent the worst of british history. i don't much care for fetishising them.[/QUOTE]
You mean the excesses of colonialism, which was driven by parliament and large companies? Or the repression and theft of land from the Irish, which kicked off in a big way under Cromwell?
I'm just curious as to what 'darkest moments' of British history the royal family remind you of?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36379538]The vast majority in England fucking [I]love[/I] the monarchy.
Personally I detest them because they possess huge excesses of power; almost all of it gained illegitimately. Their political influence may be relatively non-existent, but they still possess vile amounts of wealth and cultural influence purely in virtue of exploitation. There's no conceivable defence for monarchism as a political model, so why should we express anything but repugnance at it lingering as a cultural symbol? I can't even begin to imagine why people insist on celebrating their existence in this country.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Just because they're not [I]entirely[/I] worthless, does it mean they deserve to live in a place like this?
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Sandringham_House_garden.jpg[/img_thumb]
It's simply not possible for someone to be that valuable a person to have such exorbitant excesses of wealth and power legitimately.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say the majority love the monarchy, in the north most people I know are either indifferent or actively loathe them. The only people I know who love them are generally openly racist idiots who try and justify their existence with the ridiculous statistic that they only cost us 59p a year and fail to recognise that's still about 49 million pound.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36379538]The vast majority in England fucking [I]love[/I] the monarchy.
Personally I detest them because they possess huge excesses of power; almost all of it gained illegitimately. Their political influence may be relatively non-existent, but they still possess vile amounts of wealth and cultural influence purely in virtue of exploitation. There's no conceivable defence for monarchism as a political model, so why should we express anything but repugnance at it lingering as a cultural symbol? I can't even begin to imagine why people insist on celebrating their existence in this country.[/QUOTE]
They didn't gain it illegitimately, they never gave it away. They're also not that wealthy when you compare them to some of the world's billionares, who you really can't say have earned it more. There's no reason to keep them but there's no reason to get rid of them or hate them either. The Tourism and cultural influence isn't a bad thing either, the Brits should probably keep them just for that.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;36381695]I wouldn't say the majority love the monarchy, in the north most people I know are either indifferent or actively loathe them. The only people I know who love them are generally openly racist idiots who try and justify their existence with the ridiculous statistic that they only cost us 59p a year and fail to recognise that's still about 49 million pound.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, maybe it's just the area I'm from, then. There's definitely no shortage of support for the monarchy in the west midlands; the pisspot of the united kingdom.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Devodiere;36381885]They didn't gain it illegitimately, they never gave it away. They're also not that wealthy when you compare them to some of the world's billionares, who you really can't say have earned it more. There's no reason to keep them but there's no reason to get rid of them or hate them either. The Tourism and cultural influence isn't a bad thing either, the Brits should probably keep them just for that.[/QUOTE]
If their own stuff that they never traded for consensually, I don't see how their gains can be legitimate. Obviously they're not as wealthy as some billionaires - but most of those billionaires shouldn't be billionaires either.
Tourism I guess isn't a bad thing, but cultural influence is another thing. Celebrating something as ugly a political ideology like monarchy is very dangerous; nationalistic sentiments are irrational, and lead people to doing some disgusting things.
but how come i don't see the swedish hating the royal family as much as UK's royal family?
Honestly couldn't comment because very few people that I'm aware of actually do hate the royal family.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36381633]You mean the excesses of colonialism, which was driven by parliament and large companies? Or the repression and theft of land from the Irish, which kicked off in a big way under Cromwell?
I'm just curious as to what 'darkest moments' of British history the royal family remind you of?[/QUOTE]
King Henry executing all his wives? Bloody Mary?
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;36383541]King Henry executing all his wives? Bloody Mary?[/QUOTE]
Hardly classifies as a "dark age". If anything, look back to the Medieval age where monarchs held real, absolute power.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36384323]Hardly classifies as a "dark age". If anything, look back to the Medieval age where monarchs held real, absolute power.[/QUOTE]
I'm just naming a few examples off the top of my head, I know next to nothing on the history of England unfortunately.
The "monarchies" you (OP) are talking about are constitutional monarchies. The king or queen is mostly representative.
I hate monarchies because a bunch of people (power or not) that live off tax money is repulsive and shouldn't be in a modern society.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36390238]I hate monarchies because a bunch of people (power or not) that live off tax money is repulsive and shouldn't be in a modern society.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;bhyYgnhhKFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&feature=plcp[/video]
I really don't see why they love her so much, either. From my view, she's just a perpetual reminder of the dark days before democracy, and that some people live luxurious lives without ever doing any work. And I don't see how disposing the Royal Family would make the U.K. lose so much revenue. Yes the land is hers, but it's called a revolution for a reason. When a King/Queen is deposed, their land is stolen for the new (or in this case, not so new) government. And tourism money? I think people would still come to see all the castles, simply because they are castles. Americans don't prefer Britain's castles because they have a real queen, they prefer them because they are in an English speaking country. Plus, overthrowing the queen, no matter how symbolic, would cause a big new fiasco, and possibly more tourism.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;36390810][video=youtube;bhyYgnhhKFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&feature=plcp[/video][/QUOTE]
Alright, so a monarch who forced their way into power and that land, offers another sect of the government that forced their way into power and land the ability to pay them taxes from the people, and keep the profits from the land, is a good thing?
I don't believe the monarchy is going to get power any time soon (unless some crazy societal change happens that I can't foresee happening), but the fact that they still live off the taxes of the people based on birth is still wrong.
As stated before, Britain could invest in other areas that would allow them to bring in just as much money from tourists, if they did it wisely. They don't need to be allowing people fame and fortune by being part of royal blood.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36395652]Alright, so a monarch who forced their way into power and that land, offers another sect of the government that forced their way into power and land the ability to pay them taxes from the people, and keep the profits from the land, is a good thing?
I don't believe the monarchy is going to get power any time soon (unless some crazy societal change happens that I can't foresee happening), but the fact that they still live off the taxes of the people based on birth is still wrong.
As stated before, Britain could invest in other areas that would allow them to bring in just as much money from tourists, if they did it wisely. They don't need to be allowing people fame and fortune by being part of royal blood.[/QUOTE]
Many people in Britain live off taxes because they were born particularly poor, would you remove their money.
Most of the "major royals" do have stuff that they do, I'm hesitant to call them jobs because frankly I doubt they boss would be too miffed if they stopped turning up.
I often feel a little sorry for the royals, they get detested by vast swathes of people for nothing more than the fact that they were born into a certain family.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36395853]
I often feel a little sorry for the royals, they get detested by vast swathes of people for nothing more than the fact that they were born into a certain family.[/QUOTE]
They could get popular if they abdicate.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36395853]Many people in Britain live off taxes because they were born particularly poor, would you remove their money.
Most of the "major royals" do have stuff that they do, I'm hesitant to call them jobs because frankly I doubt they boss would be too miffed if they stopped turning up.
I often feel a little sorry for the royals, they get detested by vast swathes of people for nothing more than the fact that they were born into a certain family.[/QUOTE]
I'm mixed on living off taxes.
I think if we allow people the ability to receive tax money, shouldn't it be the same for all individuals? It's fair. If you give the poor more money, you're essentially incentivizing them to live off taxes as they can get a decent living that way, and will lose that safety net if they work. If everybody was given the same relief, then there's still incentive to work hard and obtain a higher pay and as such, a higher standard of living.
[editline]19th June 2012[/editline]
And monarchs don't get a fair amount of taxes, at that. They get much, much more.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36396680]I'm mixed on living off taxes.
I think if we allow people the ability to receive tax money, shouldn't it be the same for all individuals? It's fair. If you give the poor more money, you're essentially incentivizing them to live off taxes as they can get a decent living that way, and will lose that safety net if they work. If everybody was given the same relief, then there's still incentive to work hard and obtain a higher pay and as such, a higher standard of living.
[editline]19th June 2012[/editline]
And monarchs don't get a fair amount of taxes, at that. They get much, much more.[/QUOTE]
Not if you make benefits lower than the minimum wage, which they are.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36401624]Not if you make benefits lower than the minimum wage, which they are.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying if you give the benefits to [I]everybody[/I], then it won't take away competition. Benefits for the unemployed, while meant to assist people who can't get work, can lead to people not having to work in order to make a living. This can happen even if it's lower than minimum wage, but we have to make it so you're barely making enough to live.
i dont think many people feel a strong sense of hatred as such for monarchies, its just not many people give that much of a shit. why should i feel pressured into putting flags up everywhere and discuss an event im not interested in.
and being born into monarchy is not difficullt in any way, try telling an unemployed person living on social benefits/housing that being the queen is [i]hard[/i]
[QUOTE=Bobie;36405093]i dont think many people feel a strong sense of hatred as such for monarchies, its just not many people give that much of a shit. why should i feel pressured into putting flags up everywhere and discuss an event im not interested in.
and being born into monarchy is not difficullt in any way, try telling an unemployed person living on social benefits/housing that being the queen is [i]hard[/i][/QUOTE]
We pay the 650 MPs in Parliament near on £42,800,000 in total and rising a year. I'd rather demand more of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.