Isn't monarchy in a capitalistic country a paradox ?

[prwraith]

There is no benefit to removing the monarchy. Except that you get to tell people you don't have a monarch and you're your own big boy now.

[Kalis]

Wiki says the original claim comes from norman conquest.

The Hanoverians ascended the throne in 1714, the Norman Conquest was in 1066.


Technically our current monarch isn't actually a Hanoverian, she's Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (officially Windsor), but that's because Victoria was a woman.

[Deleted]

Well, crowned republic is pretty good option imho especially in countries where Prime Minister is most important and President have only representative function.

Everytime there are presidential elections I wish we would stop this bullshit and give presidential competences to some dynasty. Someone who wouldnt be hated by 49% of country and someone who wouldn't talk bullshit during every election campaign. So one dynasty with people that are prepared for representative role since they are born, that know etiquette, etc. would be nice option imho.

[Deleted]

We germans had out last emperor, Wilhelm II, until end of world war I. Adolf Hitler never was emperor, but just called himself "Führer", which means leader.

As in a lot of other european countries, monarchy was wiped by a revolution.

As it seems, great britain is quite happy with their queen. So why shouldnt she continue to act as a representation entity for a democracy?

I myself dont want monarchy back in my country. We got the federal president, who is the main representator without any power. The power is in the hands of the federal chancellor (currently Mother Merkel) and her government, and the parliament, and the federal assembly of countries. And last but not least the Federal Constitutional Court (where some politicans think they should not be able to cancel laws).

[ezgeze]

In the US, the goal of some are satisfied by living on the government dole.
The royal family is like the 1% for those people.

[Dhrizzle]

I watched the thing, but it considers that Monarchs own the Kingdom in fact. If tomorrow you end monarchy, they'll be spoliated from all their belongings, as it happened here. Of course, they would not " become poor ", but it would be quite far from what it is now, uncomparable.

That's a different situation, you're not saying "we should end a political system where Head of State is a hereditary position", you're saying "we should take these rich people's property and redistribute it to the state for the benefit of all." That's as far from capitalism as you can get.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh guys, read again, I wrote " Imagine "

What I meant, the idea (sorry if I'm not explaining myself clearly), is that in a capitalistic country, it's totally acceptable to be rich " by work ", or inheriting " your parents work " even if, of course, it's not as " shiny " as the " I did it by myself ". But being noble by birth ... What do you really deserve ???

I don't want it, land and castles simply become public, national properties. But I understand we don't have the same approach, I see no bad in that because I don't think nobles have a " fundamental right " on their properties. The fact it belongs to them because of historical noblility simply cancels any legitimity on any kind of goods/belongings in my mind. But I understand you see things very differently.

I don't know much, and didn't googled/wiki, but ... how can I say ... Let's say we leave kings & queens the money they accumulated over centuries until now. Wouldn't they, with their money (I guess they're at least millionaires, aren't they ?), manage to live on a high standard/rank without requiring money from the common people by taxes ?

Nobility is what "inheriting your parent's work" looks like when the family has been established for nearly a millenia.

- - - Updated - - -

The Hanoverians ascended the throne in 1714, the Norman Conquest was in 1066.


Technically our current monarch isn't actually a Hanoverian, she's Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (officially Windsor), but that's because Victoria was a woman.

Actually the claim to the UK throne is still following the line of William the Conqueror (give or take a dozen or so Civil Wars).

[Kalis]

Actually the claim to the UK throne is still following the line of William the Conqueror (give or take a dozen or so Civil Wars).

It was about the current monarch's property, not their claim to the throne.

Technically I think the claim to the throne goes back further than William the Conqueror, as he believed he had been declared as the heir and Harold Godwinson thought he was the legitimate heir.

[Spectral]

As an American, I grew up with a distaste for the hereditary monarchy - it really is a rather nasty concept. Once you get beyond the righteous indignation though, it's easy to see all sorts of benefits to hereditary rule, diplomats being designated at early ages, traditions, and even to notice some disadvantages to democracy.

On the basic question though, no, there's nothing that necessarily conflicts between monarchy and capitalism.

[Dhrizzle]

It was about the current monarch's property, not their claim to the throne.

Technically I think the claim to the throne goes back further than William the Conqueror, as he believed he had been declared as the heir and Harold Godwinson thought he was the legitimate heir.

The first couple of centuries of England, particularly the times just before the Norman Conquest, saw a lot of dynasties broken. Harald's claim to the throne came from the acclamation of his fellow Anglo-Saxons, William's came from right of conquest. All monarchs since William have made their claims based on the descent from him (occasionally with some conquest or acclamation thrown in).

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

This came to my mind last week. Even here, where the king had his head cut, each and every day we heard about the " UK noble baby ".

The City, capitalism, " you can have it if you work hard ", isn't it a real paradox, just because your are well born (no matter what you do, if you even do anything), not because you work hard or inherited the product or your parents work, that you earn in a year more than what a few added generations of real average workers would earn in their whole lives of work ?

Don't the noble accumulate enough to live on their own ?

The British Monarchy earns the country more money than it costs. As business investments go, they are an excellent investment.

[Kalis]

The first couple of centuries of England, particularly the times just before the Norman Conquest, saw a lot of dynasties broken. Harald's claim to the throne came from the acclamation of his fellow Anglo-Saxons, William's came from right of conquest. All monarchs since William have made their claims based on the descent from him (occasionally with some conquest or acclamation thrown in).

William claimed that King Edward had declared him his successor and Harold Godwinson had acknowledged that claim. So the conquest was to enforce his claim from what he believed was an usurper, not where it came from originally.

Obviously William may have been lying, but that's neither here nor there - he won, we don't have Harold's version of events to compare it to.

[Cthulhu 2020]

In an aristocracy or an oligarchy, capitalism does not exist in any meaningful way. Monarchy has nothing to do with an economic system, it just means one person rules.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

In an aristocracy or an oligarchy, capitalism does not exist in any meaningful way. Monarchy has nothing to do with an economic system, it just means one person rules.

A constitutional monarchy does not mean that one person rules.

[Dhrizzle]

William claimed that King Edward had declared him his successor and Harold Godwinson had acknowledged that claim. So the conquest was to enforce his claim from what he believed was an usurper, not where it came from originally.

Obviously William may have been lying, but that's neither here nor there - he won, we don't have Harold's version of events to compare it to.

That's not my point, I'm saying that every monarch since William has been one of his descendents.

[Shahad]

This came to my mind last week. Even here, where the king had his head cut, each and every day we heard about the " UK noble baby ".

The City, capitalism, " you can have it if you work hard ", isn't it a real paradox, just because your are well born (no matter what you do, if you even do anything), not because you work hard or inherited the product or your parents work, that you earn in a year more than what a few added generations of real average workers would earn in their whole lives of work ?

Don't the noble accumulate enough to live on their own ?

"You can have it if you work hard" isn't capitalism, it's meritocracy. One does not imply the other, just look at the United States.