Monarchy still existing alongside and with democraty subsidies : is it decent ?

[Strear]

First thing : let's evacuate right now that old song and that UK article " Yes but the Crown brings more money than it takes ".

I know there're still many kingdoms in Europe, and in other continents. Generally, the " nobles " are very, VERY rich. Europe is having hard times, but some countries still " pay " their nobles. Not that they deserve it, they're just well born at the right place, from the right noble uterus. How can it be that some countries ask efforts to their people, have cuts in public and social services, but still allow their nobles to " hold their rank " ? UK is the only monarchy we really hear about (Oh, a fantastic well born new baby ! How're they going to call her/him ? An old first name for sure. It's fantastic, I don't know why, but it is, and it will make my life better !), the spanish one, or the swedish one sometimes. I don't get how you can mix a very liberal economic way of thinking and keep monarchy side by side ?

[Deleted]

I am from Denmark. If we abolish the monarchy, we lose our head of state. Then we will have to get a new head of state, maybe a president who will also cost us money. Unlike our monarchy, a president won't generate tourism. People come to see the royal estates and such. It generates revenue, unlike a president. A president would cost us money, make politics more muddy by adding another layer of beaucracy, and wouldn't do anything the monarchy can't do.

Plus, our monarchy is apolitical, so when they are on foreign visit, they can speak on behalf of the people. Their ability to ensure good relations outside is great and has done us good alot of times.

[Wildtree]

There is nothing wrong with monarchy at all.
If anything it's the occasional monarch that can suck, and if that's the case it's bad.
And from there, it's absolutely okay to have monarchs alongside democratic government.

[Strear]

Do you have numbers Snotdot, just to compare the cost of a president with your king/queen ? We have Versailles and many castles/palaces here, people come to visit these (and we make money with these), not less than in monarchic countries I think.

[Acidbaron]

It would cost us more here to have a President than a monarch in a ceremonial role that we have now. They don't bother me, their support have been dialed back also.

So why would i want to get rid of it an replace it with something that will cost us more as a nation? Makes zero sense, Monarchy has to be bad for a reason not just out of principle that's just dumb.

[Mihalik]

First thing : let's evacuate right now that old song and that UK article " Yes but the Crown brings more money than it takes ".

I know there're still many kingdoms in Europe, and in other continents. Generally, the " nobles " are very, VERY rich. Europe is having hard times, but some countries still " pay " their nobles. Not that they deserve it, they're just well born at the right place, from the right noble uterus. How can it be that some countries ask efforts to their people, have cuts in public and social services, but still allow their nobles to " hold their rank " ? UK is the only monarchy we really hear about (Oh, a fantastic well born new baby ! How're they going to call her/him ? An old first name for sure. It's fantastic, I don't know why, but it is, and it will make my life better !), the spanish one, or the swedish one sometimes. I don't get how you can mix a very liberal economic way of thinking and keep monarchy side by side ?

To my knowledge the only "nobility" subsidized by tax payers in Europe are the handful of Royal Houses. The UK is a bit different because of the House of Lords, which is massive waste.

On the other hand, the Royal houses that continue on, due so with popular support. The people themselves decide to keep them for tradition or identity reasons. A better question would be- How are the Royal houses funded? A more flexible funding system could be put in place, where citizens are granted the right to "opt out" from having their tax cents used for funding their Royalty.

But alas, one must also keep in mind that those Royals tend to have public relations and ceremonial roles for their governments. Paying them for those services is reasonable.

[Strear]

It would cost us more here to have a President than a monarch in a ceremonial role that we have now. They don't bother me, their support have been dialed back also.

So why would i want to get rid of it an replace it with something that will cost us more as a nation? Makes zero sense, Monarchy has to be bad for a reason not just out of principle that's just dumb.

I disagree, you're not obliged to " replace " anything. See the american, they have a president, some countries just have a prime minister. I'm not asking you to cut the head of your " kingdom ", just asking if they need the money of the commoners (but maybe you can clear it for me, I don't know if the belgian king gets money from the state).

[Deamon002]

I don't get how you can mix a very liberal economic way of thinking and keep monarchy side by side ?

Because most people aren't extremists out to destroy everything that doesn't comply with their ideology of choice.

[Strear]

To my knowledge the only "nobility" subsidized by tax payers in Europe are the handful of Royal Houses. The UK is a bit different because of the House of Lords, which is massive waste.

On the other hand, the Royal houses that continue on, due so with popular support. The people themselves decide to keep them for tradition or identity reasons. A better question would be- How are the Royal houses funded? A more flexible funding system could be put in place, where citizens are granted the right to "opt out" from having their tax cents used for funding their Royalty.

But alas, one must also keep in mind that those Royals tend to have public relations and ceremonial roles for their governments. Paying them for those services is reasonable.

I understand Mihalik, and your idea about the funding opt out is a great idea ! I didn't think much about the House of Lords, are the members " elected " by the people among nobles ? Do they have significative power or is it kind of Queen's power (just theorical) ?

[Netherspark]

The remaining monarchies basically remain via a sort of economical and social blackmail - "Give us millions of pounds for doing nothing while we act superior, and we'll be a tourist attraction for you. But if you make us step down you'll lose millions too".

While the existing monarchies no longer have much political power, they still have alot of influence, alot more than people realize. They still represent us (themselves) with foreign dignitaries. They still dominate the areas they live or travel through, and the 'common folk' are expected to "make way" for them. Their security will knock you aside like you were trash simply for being nearby.

In certain ways they still rule the country, they just don't direct it any more.

[Independent voter]

Virginia state flag. Sic Semper Tyrannis, death to tyrants. That's Brutus with his foot on Julius Caesar. See the crown? Not sure why Brutus has that phallic thing.

[Deleted]

I understand Mihalik, and your idea about the funding opt out is a great idea ! I didn't think much about the House of Lords, are the members " elected " by the people among nobles ? Do they have significative power or is it kind of Queen's power (just theorical) ?

House of Lords has nothing to do with the Monarchy anymore, they've phased out almost all the hereditary aspects and new members are put in place by the main political parties, usually as symbols of service to nation or politics (most high ranking elected members of the commons will get lordships)

It's still a massive waste of money because there's just far too many (and every party always wants more and more).

The best way to describe the Lords is a "moderate" house that is not directly controlled by the government and amends bills that go through the commons. They theoretically could block legislation, but by tradition won't do so if it was included in the ruling party's election manifesto. They will send certain bills back with amendments though.

All in all the House of Lords is a very positive influence, but it's benefits could be carried out by a much smaller (and cheaper) house.

[Mihalik]

I understand Mihalik, and your idea about the funding opt out is a great idea ! I didn't think much about the House of Lords, are the members " elected " by the people among nobles ? Do they have significative power or is it kind of Queen's power (just theorical) ?

The official explanation to the functions of the House of Lords.



It's essentially the upper house of a bi-cameral parliament.

The issue is that most its members are appointed or inherit their seats. The other problem is has 820+ members (tho "only" 780ish sitting). Which is frankly absurd.

[Strear]

Thanks for the information.
I found an interesting article :
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33253411

I try to explain myself better : out of a " meeting for the commonwealth in India ", where the country sends the Queen as a representative of the UK, where the country pays the plane, fuel, people, lodging, or when the palace needs repairs, or people to clean it, keep the garden clean, the palace is part of the nation and the kingdom. I mean, out of such cases, where they interact with representing the nation, aren't they rich enough to be sufficient unto themselves ? I don't know to be honest, but I wouldn't be surprised little prince Harry gets some money just because he exists as a noble family member, not for what he does or really represents to the kingdom ?

[Deleted]

Thanks for the information.
I found an interesting article :
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33253411

I try to explain myself better : out of a " meeting for the commonwealth in India ", where the country sends the Queen as a representative of the UK, where the country pays the plane, fuel, people, lodging, or when the palace needs repairs, or people to clean it, keep the garden clean, the palace is part of the nation and the kingdom. I mean, out of such cases, where they interact with representing the nation, aren't they rich enough to be sufficient unto themselves ? I don't know to be honest, but I wouldn't be surprised little prince Harry gets some money just because he exists as a noble family member, not for what he does or really represents to the kingdom ?

We have a strange setup whereby all money the crown makes goes to the government (so they have no direct income themselves) and then we pay them a certain amount of money back which is used to support them.

[Acidbaron]

I disagree, you're not obliged to " replace " anything. See the american, they have a president, some countries just have a prime minister. I'm not asking you to cut the head of your " kingdom ", just asking if they need the money of the commoners (but maybe you can clear it for me, I don't know if the belgian king gets money from the state).

They do get money from the state and funds for trade and relationship missions and aid to maintain certain buildings.

No you have to replace it with something and you have to rewrite how legislation comes into existence. You need to change how our governments are formed as the king appoints people to lead the talks, diffuse the talks and so he is the neutral party. His roles need to be replaced.

[Mihalik]

House of Lords has nothing to do with the Monarchy anymore, they've phased out almost all the hereditary aspects and new members are put in place by the main political parties, usually as symbols of service to nation or politics (most high ranking elected members of the commons will get lordships)

There are still 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. 92. Also most of these are men, simply because the peerages can't be inherited by women. 26 Are Lords Spiritual (whatever the fuck that is), from the Anglican and ONLY the Anglican Church. Which tingles my theocracy sense. (It's like a Spider Sense, it just triggers around religious nuttyness.)

[Masark]

The issue is that most its members are appointed or inherit their seats. The other problem is has 820+ members (tho "only" 780ish sitting). Which is frankly absurd.

I find it rather amusing how the UK is turning their house of lords into something much like our Senate (only writ much larger), while one of the significant issues in the election this year is reforming or scrapping the senate.

[Deleted]

There are still 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. 92. Also most of these are men, simply because the peerages can't be inherited by women. 26 Are Lords Spiritual (whatever the fuck that is), from the Anglican and ONLY the Anglican Church. Which tingles my theocracy sense. (It's like a Spider Sense, it just triggers around religious nuttyness.)

Anglican Church only is because that's our church. The UK has a long tradition of church and state being very closely tied together (the monarch is actually the head of the Church of England). We don't like those evil Catholics! (Or at least Henry VIII didn't) Also it's worth noting that the Church of England is incredibly moderate and progressive.

[Dezerte]

I find it hard, if not impossible, to justify the funding. It may work out economically, but morally? No. Still, as long as honest welfare-seekers (i.e. poor people) get their welfare I'll grudgingly let this pass, for now.