• Queen welcomes President Trump to palace
    79 replies, posted
https://youtu.be/nhnhQ67tWf4?t=288
At least when monarchies have an slovenly, inbred idiot man child whose only two emotions are anger and pride running the country, monarchists can pretend they deserve better. Democracies just have to accept a barely sapient self-gratification machine are what the majority of people truly want.
So does she, or does she not, have political power? On what basis can you claim that royal oversight is "non-partisan"? What makes the queen "politically neutral"? Would I be deemed "non-partisan" if I was suddenly put in her position? Everyone has political opinions. You can't simply claim that an official is "non-partisan" simply because they weren't the result of a democratic process. And? Football players still aren't paid by the government. I don't see what this comparison has to do with my point. If their allowance is given in return for performing state duties, then let me offer you to perform them in their stead for half the price. After all, there isn't any background requirements for those other than being born, apparently. How much do state diplomats and national representatives earn by comparison? What are the qualifications required to become a diplomat? Not much sense in claiming to be a "representative" when you haven't been elected, either. They're funding charities using part of their government allowance? How generous! Why couldn't the government directly fund those though? What's the purpose of this other than giving illegitimate power to the royal family regarding which charity deserves this funding and which doesn't? Pretty sure actual workers and professionals are actually responsible for preserving those estates. Unless the royal family are somehow maintaining all of it on their own and not simply spending government money to have others do it for them.
She does. Technically. But if she were to wield it there would likely spark an upheaval, likely resulting in further reducing her influence.
So that's my point, if what you said is true then Cyteless' claim of what the queen's powers consist in: Ultimately amount to nothing, and the monarchy doesn't serve any political purpose. Not that it would be good if it did, but the point is that the monarchy is either useless or antidemocratic.
For me, monarchy is an issue of respect. I feel it demeaning to be treated like a lower underling by someone who was born into their position of power, who may have done little to no work in attaining their vast amounts of money. Whereas with an elected head of state, I feel like I ought to respect them because the people put them there. They are accountable to the people and to no one else, while with monarchy, that's not guaranteed.
You're right that you could definitely make the presidential seat much less political than it is in say, France or the US, but A) an elected president will still be more of a political pick, regardless of actual power, B) the fact that many people (not me included) might not know of the German president is of course a measure of power, but it’s certainly also a measure of name recognition. I think more people would put stock in Elizabeth (obviously more iconic than most royals, granted) than “Frank-Walter Steinmeier”, for example, despite them representing equally large countries. As I made clear in my post, obviously you shouldn’t choose to have a monarch purely because of these reasons, and if Denmark didn’t have a monarchy today, I wouldn’t dream of starting one up. It’s the continuity and the national story that is really at the core of this.
Living descendants of the Bourbons still exist to this day. Heck, some looners want to reinstate the monarchy and put them on the throne. You don't need to have a monarchy to have descendants of the royalty.
Some people projected this on the Tower https://preview.redd.it/734qcxldh6231.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&s=23f0c6f1ebcf72d0a919eda5c31a2cbbb02c879a
I think the queen’s penchant for danish history and culture definitely shines through when she meets with foreign diplomats and heads of state. It can definitely also inspire and connect danish people with their own history. Is she a walking museum? Obviously not, but that’s also not the point I was making. Having a head of state that’s actually down in the nitty gritty details of their own country is definitely more inspiring that some office-looking dude. The monarch is a living embodiment of the nation in a way an elected official that might only sit for a couple of years just can’t be. I'm not trying to convince you that instituting monarchy in France is a good idea, I’m trying to convey why there’s huge popular support for keeping it around in countries where it’s still a thing. Obviously it’s absurd that some people are born into such a privileged position, but contrary to popular belief, it actually comes with a string of duties and quite strict limits on how you can express yourself - considering that people are born into richer families every day, and with fewer obligations, I have a hard time getting upset about our monarchy as long as they continue doing their job as well as they are.
I don't know if you're aware but diplomats may have a similar background and skills depending on their mission. Royalty doesn't bring much more other than being a relative of the monarchs that had actual power as heads of state a while back. But having a few genes in common doesn't make much of a difference in practice. Again, there's a significant difference in that you're paying for the royal family. You're not forced to pay out of your own pocket to subsidize football players' or actors' lifestyle. As for the obligations, I'm sure that a lot of people would gladly take that mantle if it were offered to them, despite those drawbacks, if it meant getting out of the poverty they were born into. But nope, gotta be born in the right family for that, you can't apply for it.
Royal blood. What an absolutely terrible and unfounded concept to justify spending absurd amount of money on what are basically normal people that happens to have an actually strong ancestors who used to have actual importance and use to the country as their claim to the throne.
I’m obviously not trying to pity the royal family here lol. And yeah, you’re right - it comes out of my and the other Danes’ taxes, and well, you know, we’re fine with it. So I guess that’s sorta that in a way? If that changes someday, maybe we’ll vote them out. No biggie.
She technically does and is a part of the constitutional process. I wasn't referring to any sort of royal oversight, I was referring to the oversight of royal appointments. Being politically neutral is a matter of political process - if there were any discrepancy it would be an urgent matter for Parliament. I bring up football players and celebrities because they aren't given the same sort of accountability for their extravagant wealth that the Monarchy is. The Monarchy isn't given money without any sort of responsibility, they are under constant scrutiny and review. When you brought up redressing the distribution of wealth in the country, I don't see the Monarchy's expense as: a) outside of reasonable bounds given their responsibilities as diplomats for the state, and responsibility for Crown estates, and; b) significant enough of an expense to make any sort of tangible impact if it were redirected from their responsibilities to health and social services. I'm sure if after government review, or by precedent set by Parliament, that the Monarchy would be dissolved if it were no longer deemed to be of value. I would say, particularly with a socialist dominant Labour Party having a significant representation in Parliament, that if such an occasion were to arise that it will be acted upon. This also applies on whether the Monarchy is still viewed as appropriate for diplomatic representation for the UK or not. Whether you believe in it or not, Royal family members offering patronage to charities and institutions makes those bodies more attractive for other wealthy people to put money towards. I don't think we should discredit the significance of high-profile public figures doing charity work - faceless government funding isn't as visually attractive. Popular perception of the Royals has a notable impact on tourism, so you can see why the same principle would mean a charity would find a royal patron desirable. People being employed is a good thing. I don't see it as contentious that public spaces of cultural and environmental significance are being maintained. Crown land isn't wholly owned by the Monarchy as private holdings, it's owned by the Crown as a corporate entity, which is halfway between Monarch and Government control, with it contributing towards the Treasury for Government expenditure.
Didnt the queen/royal family revealed to be dodging their taxes? I think the Panama papers?
Even if you want to argue this the position and its wealth sure as hell shouldn't be inheritable. Also charity funded by the wealthy (as referenced in a later post) is more of a PR move than anything else given that compared to the vast quantities of wealth still being withheld, the amount that actually goes into these charities is a pittance at best.
Yeah, but the Monarch's wealth, by virtue of the Crown estates being held in corporation, isn't part of her personal wealth. She can't sell the properties or make investments herself. The Monarchy is heavily curtailed.
Can you please tell me the name of this historical collection? I can't seem to really find anything specific on this, and I'm suspicious that this historical collection is actually imperialistically stolen artifacts.
Three reasons. Racist, sexist, and childish. None of these are political.
The thing is, Mr. Tinyhands would kick up a political stink about it and it would result in tensions between the UK and US. The Royal institutions are probably smart enough to know how to treat manbabies with this kind of power, they'll play along just because trump is the bull in the proverbial china shop and it's better to try and gently guide it out rather than push it away or lock it in a backroom and hope for the best.
Royal Collection The Queen herself puts on a pith helmet, grabs her shotgun and travels to Africa. Plundering the riches of the land from the savages living there.
In theory, yes, but how many elected heads of state, in practice, are truly accountable to the people in today's world?
Discrepancy compared to what? What constitutes being politically neutral, agreeing to any and all appointment proposals that are being made without exception? Then that's effectively a useless position. And how exactly would you define being politically neutral when it comes to having weekly meetings with the prime minister? What is this if not a giant one-person lobby that directly meets with the government more often than even the most powerful ones? How exactly can you claim that the political process is neutral here? Unless they discuss nothing but tea and corgis in those weekly meetings, then they're bound to discuss political matters. And I don't see how you can trust any human being to be neutral on those matters other than by having blind faith in them. And you're still missing the point on that one. Football players and celebrities aren't paid by the government. It's sponsors or publisher money they're wasting away, not the taxpayer's. And besides, there's a pretty big difference between acknowledging that wealth inequality is a thing between private citizens and legitimizing said inequality institutionally by giving large amounts of government money to a family for simply existing. Again, if you're going to argue that it's okay because they have responsibilities, then just give those responsibilities along with the corresponding pay to other people that are willing to fulfill them and actually need it. The royal family didn't do anything to deserve these positions in particular, contrary to actual diplomats who needed to work hard to even get a shot at getting into their position. If you're going to lower the bar of entry, then you might as well give priority to those in need. I really don't think that, after these past few years, this is the greatest time for you to argue that the Parliament would make rational decisions. Then if this is only a question of PR, what exactly is the point of the royal family actually owning that money and getting to decide alone where it should go? If it's only a question of prestige then just get a democratically elected committee to decide on which part of the royal allowance goes to which charity, and have members of the royal family simply deliver the donations themselves. Might as well have them play the strictly diplomatic role fully if you're going to be so willing to commit to it. Popular perception of the royals only affects tourism because you put yourself in that situation. If you did like most other constitutional monarchies and didn't put your monarch forward so much culturally then the vast majority of people wouldn't give a shit and would be interested in more grounded cultural aspects of your country. I doubt most people know who the king of Spain is and yet that doesn't prevent quite a bit of tourists from visiting. That... Was never my point? I'm saying that whether the royal family spends government money on maintenance or the government directly funds it doesn't make a lick of difference. The royals don't bring any value on that front.
Depends. For example, Ireland's head of state is in the public eye. Any misdemeanour made by the head of state is scrutinized and so the president corrects their mistake accordingly. The thing is, with a president and an elected head of state their accountability is directly to the people in theory and in many states (Portugal, France and Ireland as examples) to the people. Monarchy is by nature accountable really only to themselves, and misdemeanours can easily be blamed on "sneaky politicians" or "rubbish parliament" if a monarch was seditious enough.
Aren't Monarchy at this point just kinda like national animals, like Pandas or Kangaroo, in the way that it is unique to/represent this place and its history. They require a lot of money to preserve, which they don't quite earn themselves, just for symbolic reasons. They don't really hold any power to the country and just exists for people to look at.
The thing about monarchies (as a form of representation of a country) is that it can wary a lot in meaning between countries. The sheer fact that it exists can be politically charged even if the royals have no political power or expresses any political opinions.
https://i.imgur.com/pXIDD5i.jpg
I can't decide whether his jacket is too short or his vest is too long, but it looks terrible
An ill-fitted suit for an ill-fitted manchild. It's perfect.
https://twitter.com/MikeDrucker/status/1135662302445887495
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.