A good video that explains it very well.
Monarchy is all about inequality, which sucks, plus, it's a waste of the tax payers' moneyz.
I live in Sweden and I do not support our monarchy. Even if they don't have a leading role in society, they do get a bunch of the tax payers money because it's their "birthright?". None of them have done anything useful lately except for running charity operations and such. Heck, our king is even a dyslexic fool who ruins peace conferences.
I've got nothing against our royal family, but I'm not a big fan of them either. As long as they stay politically neutral and behave properly. As for the expenses, I believe the income from tourism at least close to covers it, and the difference from having a president in terms of cost is probably minimal.
Nothing worth having comes easy. That's why hard content is worth doing, and easy content is a waste of time.
Hostorically speaking, Norway does a crap job of hanging on to norwegian culture. We let our non-christian holidays fade into obscurity, our kids believe we have always celebrated Halloween like they do in the U.S., and we generally only have to norwegian cultural 'things' left: Bunad (national suit) and our monarchy. It gives us (at least some of us :P) a sense of belonging to something bigger, having an identity as a people, separate from politics.
Most benefits of having a monarch are things that can't be measured, but I honestly think we're better off for having one. And Norway's king, at least, can't be called useless: The guy represented us in three different Olympics (yachting/sailing), and his crew won the bronze, silver and gold medals in the sailing World Championship in 1988, 1982 and 1987 respectively. So our king has literally represented us several times^^
I like the idea of monarchy. Sweden has always been a monarchy, to give it up would be wrong. It part of our history, and history to become. Last time there was a royal wedding, it unified people from every corner of Sweden. Loads of ppl went to Stockholm just to say " Hey. I was there" What things does that in a was that monarchy does?
Does the Scandinavian royalty bring in alot of money? If so its probably a safe bet to keep them around.
The big slab of the appanage is used for upkeep of the royal castles and estates, all of them of national historical value so we would pay for them with tax money either way, that is what many dont recognize
I'd like to keep them around in Denmark. I don't know how the finances come up, probably with a plus here in different ways. I'd much rather like to see the religious favoritism gone before the trails of monarchism are erased. Plus we got a nice family here in DK, so that would be good to have for some more time. It's not like they decide much anyway and not really anything political of importance.
And thanks to all the visits and friendships with other parts of the world, Denmark is regarded as one heck of a country, which sparks tourism amongst other things, which leads to money.
---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 09:52 PM ----------
Amazing sig, done by mighty Lokann
Old people like monarchy, they want to keep it "classic". I can't say that younger people care for their king/queen - atleast I'm not. I can't really say that they're doing anything of "worth" to our country than taking taxmoney and to create big newpaperarticles about something they've done. Useless, if you ask me.
I like the monarchy in Norway. On the other hand, I do not like our princess, mostly due to her past. But that's just me. The royal family is the highest chief of pretty much anything, but would rarely use any of those roles in order to overrule what is done further down the line. They're pretty much just someone who will put the kingdom in a good lighting.
Last edited by Pancha; 2013-02-24 at 08:57 PM.
Does it unite people? No, I doubt it. If it has an effect it's very minor. Having our team win the Ice-Hockey world cup or something similar has or would have more of a unity effect then the king, and/or future queen. The Kings annual newyears speech the last few years have pissed off more people that he has managed to unite.
Is it a giant waste of money? Not really. It's not like the alternative would be cheaper. Having a President isn't exactlly free, possibly he wouldn't need as many castles around the country side. But on the other hand those places wouldn't vanish into this air if he wasn't around so the cost to the government would still be there. The entire security/publicity/facility apparatus surrounding them would still be there, just serving someone else.
Plus the current King has more or less no actual power what so ever. So if he wants to stick around and be King I'm cool with that. It doesn't make any difference to me.
Last edited by looorg; 2013-02-24 at 09:00 PM.
I don't see why we would need a president instead of a monarch, though. I never said I wanted either. I am not a person who bothers alot with politics, mind, so I might be wrong and we might need one, but I just don't see it - as far as I've understood, the queen we have currently has no real impact on how the country is run. She's just "there".
Kings and queens are a reminiscent from a long forgotten era, where "ruling a kingdom" actually ment ruling it, rather than being a frontfigure.
---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 09:59 PM ----------
Amazing sig, done by mighty Lokann