It's like your country is wearing a fancy hat. The hat is not practical, it doesn't help you do things, but boy does it look neat. It's not all that expensive, so why not? Lots of countries have big monuments, historic buildings for their legislatures to be in and so forth, this is just that in human form.
It’s not all that expensive, so why not? Lots of countries have big monuments, historic buildings for their legislatures to be in and so forth, this is just that in human form.
Are we sure they're not all that expensive, comparatively speaking to the monuments and historic buildings and the like?
It's really not that expensive in comparison, especially when you count the tourism factor which is absolutely significant.
Go to London, or Copenhagen, or Stockholm, and see the Changing of the Guards. Do that on any random Tuesday - and notice the crowds of people that watch.
And, as has been said already, at least in Scandinavia the monarchs have high cultural value and are very well liked, on top of having important roles in keeping government going. They aren't freeloaders, and there isn't a huge upper class attached.
Besides what was already said, I'd like to add that with only a few exceptions (most notably Japan and to a lesser degree the Netherlands, I believe) most constitutional monarchs even pay taxes on their private income.
They usually receive some kind of stipend/grant as a sovereign which is not taxed. But what they gain from "extracurricular" activities is fair game.
And I think it is worth keeping in mind that a lot of the trappings and estate of a monarch would have to be upkept as part of the cultural heritage and national prestige anyway.
So between paying for a museum/cultural heritage site and letting someone who is essentially a paid actor who got the job through their parents live in there, why not.
And you can never underestimate the soft power a well-liked sovereign can have as a symbol and tool of population control. If the personification of your state talks to the people, many listen.
In international relationships, a monarch can be a soft diplomat and fulfill the role of someone who is at a special remove even from other statesmen and can do and say certain things in certain ways.
Yeah? They generally have plenty of money of their own, the government just pays for a bit of pageantry now and then.
There are stabilizing benefits in some cases. Traditions can be valuable, even just for show.
Think of them as prestigious diplomats.
Sounds way better when you say "I had a meeting with the king of The Netherlands recently" compares to "I had a meeting with the High Commissioner of The Netherlands recently "
You can still say "king" if you want
No because a king is different to a high commissioner.
It's the country's law, you can call the high commissioner "king" if you agree to. Ireland calls its prime minister and deputy PM "taoiseach" and "tánaiste" respectively, which are monarchic titles from the Gaelic clan system
Because conservatives would go to the culture war trenches over it and it's a cheap, simple concession that literally does not matter.
You give them a royal family as a chew toy and ideally pass non-reactionary, non-anachronistic stuff elsewhere.
it’s a cheap, simple concession
Depends. AFAIK the English monarchy is fairly expensive.
it's difficult to calculate, but if you factor in the amount of tourism money the british monarchy generates it's probably a net profit.
Still not convinced that the tourists wouldn't come anymore if you depower the monarchs and keep the palaces etc. as state-owned tourist attractions, TBH.
Didn't you hear all of the old palaces on France have had zero visitors since they packed away the guillotines
Just in case it's. Ot obvious /s
I think the "it drives tourism" angle is extremely disingenuous and really doesn't play. Certainly not for the other constitutional monarchies.
I also think the cost argument itself is pretty disingenuous, though. It's not like an elected head of state is free. Especially not if you factor in the cost of running elections and campaigns for the position.
Both things ultimately go to the same point: figurehead is a figurehead. If having a figurehead shuts down traditionalist bullcrap elsewhere I am more willing to make concessions there than on actual policy. You want your mid-skill diplomats to be elected by having sex with each other? Weird kink, but there are higher priorities and it's a good a reason as any to have a chauvinistic parade every so often. Which is to say not very, but again, you do you.
Chew toys.
You don't need a popular election to elect a state figurehead, Germany just has it done by existing parliaments. And figureheads who aren't monarchs don't usually have vast landholdings like most monarchs do.
I don't know about "most monarchs". This wole thread is fairly anglocentric, it seems. It makes sense for the holdings of the crown to be public property. That's a more than reasonable middle ground, especially if the royal family is on a salary.
Germany's anomaly aside, Presidents tend to have at least some political power, rather than be just a figurehead. I would question the value of an entirely ceremonial head of state who is not a monarch. Why not get rid of the role entirely at that point, if you're going to keep a fully parliamentarian system with executive power consolidated in a PM? I mean, if you're planning to have an entirely useless position why take the chew toy away from the dogs? At least keep them entertained.
Most constitutional monarchies got that way due to incremental change generally caused by political crises. Switching from a monarchy to a republic usually done as a response to one of these crises; no crisis usually means the monarch keeps the crown.
You also have an issue of what to replace the monarch with. Most constitutional monarchies have parliamentary systems of government where the legislature has supremacy. However, you still need a supreme executive to run a government when the legislature fails. The process of picking that person is very politically important and had inherent risks to it. For some countries, keeping the monarch as the on/off switch is easier than dealing with the headache of choosing a President.
They still have power. The king has regular meeting with the prime minister and they own an awful amount of property which also translates to power
Not wrong but they are rich because they are part of the monarchy and they are very rich. And the meeting between king and Prime Minister is a scheduled thing in the UK
Influencing their subjects (especially other aristocrats) through their economic power was always important for monarchs, though. The medieval period had lots of weak kings who had substantial trouble bringing the aristocrats under them in line, a lot of the time they weren't even able to collect taxes at the kingdom-level (you kind of need a money-based economy for that, and civil servants were in very short supply in the middleages).
Which king?
Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, koning der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg for instance does.
I was talking about the UK but pretty sure it exists in other countries in a similar fashion
Yes, of Angmar
A lot of good points here about pros and cons when considering republic vs constitutional monarchy. I was myself against the idea of monarchy for quite a while, but I realize it's mostly because I was living in the UK at the time and was exposed to how normal people are treated compared to the upper class. In addition, though the British royal family doesn't have any power on paper, they have vast connections in all parts of the government and private sector with many ways to influence things. Also, the UK was until recently a two party state, which meant almost total power to whichever party won the election.
Scandinavia doesn't have as much of a disparity between social classes (even counting royals), and what I see here is that the monarchy provides a stability and continuity that we wouldn't get with a republic. Anyone can lie, cheat and bribe their way to getting elected president, but when you have a dozen different parties with different policies passing laws with a monarch as an anchor, it works out pretty well.
The King of Norway has a mostly symbolic role in day-to-day affairs. New laws that have been passed by the Storting (Parliament) will have their final approval signed by the King, but this is largely a token approval. The King does have veto power over any given amendment, but if he invokes it, Parliament has the right to vote the same amendment through a second time, at which point it cannot be vetoed. He is the head of the Church of Norway, and also supreme commander of our armed forces. Though command is delegated to other commanders, the King would have a more direct role in questions regarding central command or wartime. When representing our country abroad, he is very much considered a personification of the nation, rather than a representative of the ruling party. Norway's main reason for maintaining our own monarchy stems very much from declaring independence from Denmark and Sweden, which ruled us for about 500 years.
I just want to underscore the crucial part of the monarch being apolitical. I believe the only Norwegian citizens that cannot vote are the royal family (whether by tradition or law I'm not sure).
I think it definitely has an effect of bringing cohesion and stability to a country that you have a formal head of state, or a "personification" of the nation, that is not tied to any political party. One thing is in foreign diplomacy, another thing is in bringing the country together during a crisis. In the latter case, the monarch is a figurehead that everyone can gather around, regardless of political affiliation.
The point of a constitutional monarchy is to transition away from an absolute monarchy towards a republic.
It's not though. It could be the point in some cases. But often enough, constitutions have been granted as concessions from the sovereign to whatever group was putting up pressure, often the nobility, who had no further intent to introduce a republic or democracy or whatever else. Just looking out for their own interests.
No, the point is to prevent real democracy by being “democratic enough”.
Who would want "real democracy"? Have you met people? They're terrible.
Electoral College yes, in favor
Senators appointed by legislature no, not in favor
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of Electoral College reform. I think in particular unbinding electors is necessary, as is doing away with the "winner-take-all" distribution of electors. And while uncapping the House isn't EC reform per se, doing so would make a drastic improvement to how representative the EC would be. These three things would fix most of the problems with the EC, ranked-choice voting or similar would take care of the rest.
that you weren't instantly permabanned from slrpnk for saying this
You mean the instance that hosts the "not voting" community? I think I'll be fine.
"in your election", for moral abstainers and non-citizens. Not an anti-democracy sub.
Because it's not a small thing to change. You're basically overhauling everything if you wish to transition from a monarchy to a republic, because it's rooted in everything.
The names of the governmental positions, and possibly their responsibilities would need to change, as would official documentation, the money, the flag, the national anthem...
You could hardly call yourself a republic if your passports are still carry the authority of the monarch, and your national anthem prominently features the King.
It only gets more complicated if you're a former colonial power, since they may also be affected, and have to change everything as well. If the UK decides to ditch the Monarchy and become a Republic, Australia and Canada would need to follow suit, since it would be silly for them to have references to a monarch that no longer exists, or a GG who's meant to be representative for a position that no longer exists.
Either that, or there will be a political/legal headache deciding whether they become the new inheritors of the monarchy, since the parent is gone, or would they be also need to make the same changes (see above).
Pity they can’t just put a page in the book that says “from here forward we do things this new way” and just keep moving. But that’s not how legal and governmental systems work.
Damn out of 90 comments I read only a couple that made any sense.
It's because it's a complex legal transition to g othrough, because laws are a dumb series of words that's usually tied to the whateverness the highest for of power is.
It's still objectively odious to grant birth based rights or role to certain people over others.
The only practical positive I can see is that it's such a dumb system that it can be fromally abused to enforce a certain degree of stability when the proper democratic process go and fuck itself, but 1) there's other ways 2) at that point the crown storically sides with the degenerates (becaue power by birthrights is a degenerate concept after all).
These comments are proof that Robespierre didn't go far enough.
In my country they have enough support from both the left and right leaning voters. Also a vast majority of voters think there are more important issues to deal with.
Some parties (we have 8 with >4% votes) have an ideological position that we should abolish momarchy. No party is actively campaigning for it, because it's seen as unimportant.
In my country we have 2 kings, one of whom complains he does not get enough money to fuel his yacht. No joke.
I'm intrigued. Which country?
Belgium :)
Does he still require childrens hands?
Of course. He's rumoured to have partaken in pedophilic sex parties in the 70s and 80s. But that was before he was king, so that doesn't count (apparently...).
Our royal family is mostly into sailing, I choose to believe that's why we don't have the same issue.
Hahaha yes I would be more supportive of a royal sailing family 😄
What country is it that has these sailing royals?
Norway
Very cool! And also very handy. If you get tired of them, just reverse the current to some ocean wind turbines, and they'll never make it back 😀
A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn't automatically mean "powerless figurehead."
Given the way the US has been recently, I'm willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.
Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word "training" to make it fit that sentence above.
Given the way the US has been recently, I'm willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.
That's an argument I've often heard, in favour of monarchy - "Would you prefer a President Blair/Johnson/Farage?"
It's a fair point, but they never have an answer for what would happen with a King Blair/Johnson/Farage.
With a president (or any other democratic system) you can, at least in theory, have a say in who represents the country. As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.
They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply "better" than others.
Monarchy is just repugnant to me - and not just the British Monarchy, the whole concept.
The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.
But I'm with you. No kings.
As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.
They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.
We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.
True, but they can't literally stop a law happening until it is written to suit them. Figuratively, maybe through influence, pressure, money, etc - but not as an official, formal thing.
You raise a really good point. Makes me think of Plato’s philosopher kings trained since birth and separated from society. Seeing how most politicians are horrible even pre MAGA really makes this seem like a legitimate choice. Also have considered this when most of the population makes their political choices based on nothing but what they consume, ie bozos
I wouldn't choose such a system, I think, but I can't say that there aren't at least a few half decent arguments for it.
I’ve thought that as well but your comment made me rethink it!
Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule. Victor Emmanuel III was famously told by his generals that they could stop the March on Rome and chose not to because he thought Mussolini would bring him more personal power and conquests for Italy.
Tl;Dr (all of history) your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say, so maybe don't yield rhetorical ground that you don't need to
Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.
And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren't under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.
your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say
So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?
Monarchs are like cardboard boxes. Someday they'll be useful again, you just know it.
See? I knew we'd find a use for him.
My wife uses them to keep weeds from growing in the garden...boxes that is. Perhaps we could utilize the king in a similar fashion?
Keeps the conservatives somewhat placated.
I think taking a broad view, there are quite a lot of constitutional monarchies that are really great places to live (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, the Bahamas, Japan, to name a few). There are also quite a lot of republics that can claim the same. So, from a sort of human development POV, I don't think it really matters very much.
[EDIT: Should've added that there are also plenty of republics and monarchies that are disasters, too. My point is that there's no consistent pattern of one works and the other doesn't.]
Sure, monarchies are a bit daft but I think 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' is quite a good rule. Especially since spending time on fixing things that ain't broke is time you could be spending on fixing things that are broke. I live in the UK and we have a lot of major problems that need our attention. It's better to focus on those than have a big argument about the King when, as we can see from international comparisons, the King isn't really the issue.
I love that you said Canada but not the UK as we share a monarch 🤣 please send help i hate it here
Heh. Yeah, I can't really hold up a country backsliding on trans rights as an example of an effective constitutional monarchy.
Yeh that and the whole Enoch powel impression our aledged left wing prime minister is doing just now
As a noggie, this resonates with me. My ideology is in line with nobody being more important from the Birthe lottery than anyone else. But my pragmatic side says that there are no pressing concerns that justify such a drastic change as abolishing the royal family.
They don't cost that much, our regent is alright, and his heir apparent is pretty alright too. Might as well keep them around as a unifying symbol and as primary diplomats.
Plus, I have to admit that I like the concept of a lhaving an apolitical person with veto powers, in case some shithead starts something silly. I just hope said veto powers are used if needed.
Source: Met them both when I was in the army roughly 1.3 lifetimes ago.
I mean think of it this way: If your monarch isn't a dick and removing them would piss off the reactionaries and average people who don't care much about politics, why would you do that? They also help curb strongman autocrats by providing a target for the population to worship (therefore occupying that niche for a certain section of the population) but not give any real power to.
Not going into civil war. Basically that's it.
Democracy but don't destroy previous institution because some people would actually go to war over that.
I think eventually they all will fall. When people just stop seeing the point.
There's never been a coherent point
These people have to tune into Fox every night before learning what today's opinions will be.
How would you get rid of them?
All the constitutional monarchies started as just monarchies. Every step between those days and what's around now have been gradual, and usually very stable.
If you want to completely sever royals from government, it isn't as simple as snapping fingers. Some of them, you'd have to unmake the constitution and rebuild it from the ground up. And that isn't something that everyone in those countries wants, so you'd have to get people on board and willing to deal with the transition instability.
Undoing all the baby steps from "King Bob, first of his name, absolute ruler" to "king Fred, he's kind of a figurehead, but kinda has a minor role too" is, in the cases I'm aware of, a damn hard one to unwind. Each movement comes along with other laws and decisions that would have to be untangled to sever the ties.
Not an impossible task, but a long, difficult, and expensive one. Yeah, you get enough people on board, throw a revolution, and you bypass all that, but then you've got to rebuild anyway, which means you'll be building the new government in baby steps with compromises and concessions and political expediency. With no guarantee of something better at all. It could end up better, but it could end up with a nation in collapse.
Again, if enough people want it, and accept that risk, it could happen.
But most people want stability. Very little gives the sensation of stability like hundreds of years of the same family being in place. Sure, you get assholes and idiots among them, but you have the constitution and the actual government to keep it in check. Another fifty years down the road, it changes faces and life goes on.
The simplest method in most cases would probably just be to change the law about succession. Keep the position of king, just make it an elected or appointed one. That way nothing else has to be touched unless you want to change it
All the constitutional monarchies started as just monarchies.
Nope.
Spain, for instance, started as a dictatorship.
Then the bastard died of being an old piece of shit, hopefully extremely painfully, and the corrupt fratricidal parasite he'd named as a successor, a descendant of some dude who had been king long before the dictatorship (which started as a coup against a democratic republican government) he'd been grooming for years, was named king.
There was a sham "democratic transition" that defecated a "democratic construction" with the military threatening the elected politicians to make sure the new constitution wasn't too democratic, and a referendum where the people voted for that thing because at least it wasn't as bad as going back to the dictatorship.
Then a few years later the parasite (secretly) staged a coup, and then publicly diplomatically dismantled it, enshrining himself as a saviour of democracy and making sure the citizenship wouldn't push for radical change, lest the next coup succeed.
As the bastard Franco said before he died, he left everything “tied up and well tied up”.
Being real though, saying that a dictator isn't effectively a monarch is sophistry.
In the Netherlands, it's not like the King or his family aren't doing anything. They are somewhat like special ambassadors for the country. They also are highly connected, both to people in governments and other people in a position of power. And they do answer to the Parliament.
It’s like when you get inoculated with a weakened form of a live virus so you can build up an immunity to more virulent forms.
I like this image. I'm a citizen of a small monarchy, and I used to be a staunch republican (in the European sense). I'm still not a big fan of the monarchy, but it's a way to help conservatives feel secure while being, in fine, more open than the neighboring republics. But we don't have a House of Lords or any nobility beside the reigning immediate family, so that helps accepting the monarchy.
What's wrong with New Zealand or Australia ot Canada or?
Uhhh mate our nation is literally dictated by another country and we don’t have genuine autonomy?
Uh... No? The fuck are you even talking about? When is the last time the British monarch made a decision on behalf of Canada?
Wow that is messed up. It's also from 50 years ago so... yeah.
and the republic's of the world are much better?
- Peoples Republic of China
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Republic of the Congo
- Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
- Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
- Russian Federation...
Then there is the USA
ok, lets look at it the other way then?
So, what's you point?
I have given you a list of poor democracies that are 'republics' and a list of strong democracies that many/most of which are a constitutional monarchy of some flavour or another.
You are arguing from ignorance. The terms republic and democracy and so on have rather solid definitions in political science. Republic is not a very informative descriptor of the poltical system of a country, it just means that the role of head of state in't heritable, ie. that it isn't a monarchy. The actual political system of a republic can be basically anything except a monarchy.
no, no I'm not. I'm just pointing out correlations
A republic just means that a country doesn't have a heritable head of state. All of those listed countries are in actual fact republics. It says next to nothing about the actual political system of a country besides the role of the head of state. Lots and lots of dictatorships are republics. Many democracies are republics as well, but as you can see it is the dictatorship/democracy part which describes the important part of those countries political systems, not republic.
Many Americans are confused about this, because they have been indoctrinated into thinking that republic is the main descriptor of their system. Mainly because it was an important descriptor back in the 18th century, when most countries were monarchies, but much less so in later times when most existing countries are republics.
"...that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; ...so help me God."
I'm neither American nor from a monarchy, but pledging allegiance to your country still seems less weird than to a specific person. Like, what you are quoting still "on behalf of the United States" as opposed to, say, the president. Both are weird, but pledging allegiance to a person feels weirder to me.
The tourism argument is frequently bandied about, but I don't think there's much substance to it. The tourist attractions are the buildings (which obviously don't disappear in the event of ending the monarchy) and ceremonies (which you can keep if you choose to, including the fancy costumes). It's particularly unconvincing here in the UK when we are literally right next door to France, the world's number one tourist destination. Versailles does not lack for visitors.
My bad. I blame the thirty eight million times I heard people make the argument earnestly after the British queen died
Republics give you Trump....
What I mean is this:
A Prime Minister is not a president. They are simply the leader of whichever party has he most seats in parliament and is therefore the "face" of the government in many ways.
Most importantly this means that there is no such thing as "executive orders" because there is no "executive" branch, per se. Meaning even if we (Canada) had fucked up and elected Trump-lite, Pollieve, his ability to do the same shit Trump is doing would be severely limited in that everything goes through parliamentary vote without exception (for the most part).
A ruling party has something called the Emergencies Act, that can, to a limited degree, allow them to enact a few things without parliamentary vote, but its use is generally highly controversial and is still very controlled by judicial review.
Long story short (too late, I know) is that the tsunami of bullshit that Orange Hitler is doing is because he's using executive orders to enact things and then fighting congress in court when they push back rather than getting congressional approval BEFORE enacting it.
Something that is far more limited in a governmental system where that much power HASN'T been given to one person.
That's an argument against an executive branch of government, not an argument against a constitutional monarchy.
You could have (and many countries do) a parliamentary system like you describe without having a monarch figurehead.
The question I think OP is asking is: why have the monarch figurehead.
Because, and not to sound flippant, that's just the easiest and most natural way to do it without a lot of extra paperwork.
See technically, a "president* is meant as a drop in replacement for a monarch. A republic doesn't get rid if its king, they just replace one who was born into it with one they chose and one they pretend to have a bit more control over.
Canada's equivalent to Trump isn't Carney, technically it's King Charles. And the U.S equivalent to Prime Minister would be who've leads the majority party in congress.
Could we go through the constitutional rigamarole to change that? Sure. But why bother when he's content to stay out of things.
Essentially, a parliamentary democracy means that our "Trump" is a deadbeat dad who lives in another country.
I'll happily keep that buffer in place versus whatever the fuck the U.S had gotten themselves into.
There are lots of republics where the president does serve as a literal figurehead without any consequential powers, so a republic does not necessarily turn up with a Trump. In fact the US is rather unique in how it has combined republic with absolute monarchy in the office of the president, probably very much a sign of how antiquated the constitution is.
Additionally, a figurehead monarch doesn’t address any of the issues with a successful Trump-like politician. Here in the UK I often hear people saying "would you want a President Boris Johnson?" No, I wouldn't, but him being called Prime Minister instead of President removed literally none of his practical political power
Yeah our system of government is clearly far superior.
I feel like that's sarcasm? But yes, I legitimately feel that our system, where the only person who has any "theoretical" power to make unilateral decisions without parliament is some old guy who is content to just stay out of it, is better.
Imagine an America where they could tell Trump. "Okay, you're king. Here...we'll even put you on our money. Now go live overseas and fuck off"
Because some people never grow up and still want a daddy/authority figure to tell them how to live.
That's why orginized religion or other authoritarian fetishes exist.
You realize The Vatican is a city-state right? Like a country.
Now I really want to answer your rhetorical question, because you've badly misunderstood how popes work.
To a small extent they’re in charge of the third biggest population of any country
In the UK, the Royal Estate provides the government with a huge income (even though 25 percent goes to the king so he can repair his fancy castles).
I don't quite understand this argument. It's not like the royalty is required for that state to be valuable. You could just take it from them. It was stolen from the people originally. That huge income could go 100% to the people and the nation.
I was with you until “stolen from the people.” Monarchs back in their heyday served a purpose. It took centuries to build up nation-states and common law.
Hell, it took Germany until the late 1800s to get their shit together, and even after then, it took another 100 years still.
Yes their purpose was to take as much as they could from the populace for their own personal gains. That was their purpose. By the way it's absurd that you sit here and talk about centuries to build up nation-states (as if thats an inherint positive) and common law as if those things weren't built up in spite of monarchies. Usually in bloody opposition to monarchies.
I think you’ve bought into the Disney trope a bit too much, or at best viewing history from a myopic perspective.
Monarchs provided defense for their constituents, they provided city planning. Wealth extraction was an outcome, not unlike a business. Not all kings were Ivan IV’s, there are far more who served their people well who are not as infamous.
That isn’t to say I’m a monarchist, not by a long shot, just that monarchy serves its place in history.
Wealth extraction was an just an outcome? Good lord man. That's hilarious. No. It was the point. Rather like in business, lol.
Got to have the right location, resources, timing and motivation. It’s not like wealth falls from the sky. It’s not like workers/constituents will work for the sake of working, at least not most of them. They have to get something out of the deal.
Get some knowledge in your head, read a book. Think for yourself and stop getting your info from the Disney channel.
Yes it's called overwhelming and brutal military force. It's called the threat of violence. Wealth doesn't front come from the sky it's taken from the people through exploitation. Taken through fear. Also stop saying constituents. You mean slaves. You mean serfs. Constituent is an entirely different term than implies a measure of equality and choice. It's really weird you're using that term.
Also just as an aside, what's the shit you keep talking about with Disney? Do you think Disney's anti-monarchy? Cuz like their whole thing is pretty princesses and wonderful princes and shit. Like I have no idea where on Earth you're going for with that one.
Damn you got this whole angry dude who puts down people and their ideas schtick down.
I already told you why. You have a very narrow, Disne-esque perception of what living under a monarchy is, and I’m telling you, often the “serfs” had more autonomy and authority than that perception.
We must not attribute a modern context to historical times. Rather, we should strive to look at history through a historical lens.
This is the best answer I think, tons of income from tourism.
Lol yeah let me go travel to see humans. But they are better than you because some slag in a lake tossed a sword?
It's the estate that makes the income though, not the family. In the UK most of that estate is owned by the position of the monarch itself rather than by the monarch; a perk of the job, not private property. In other words it'd probably still make just as much money in a republic, arguably more since we could let visitors in to see the buildings
The British monarchy provides quite a bit of money for the country.
The British monarchy primarily "provides" money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also "earn" a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.
They provide about 1.5 billion pounds of tourism revenue per year, far outweighing the sovereign grants they recieve from the the government.
You really think the tourists would stop looking at British castles etc. if the UK became a republic?
I'm pretty sure the people calculating the number could distinguish between tourism for castles and the monarachy.
some if them would. Some people are just fascinated by the anachronism of having a king. A palace that once belonged to some king a few hundred years back is just far less interesting than a palace with a living, breathing monarch in it.
Versailles gets fifteen million visitors a year
I highly disagree with that. It's literally the opposite in opinion. I'm way more interested in castles where no one's living in them now because that way they're more of an historical Relic. Why do I want to see where some rich fuck head lives today? Let's see some pricks big screen TV and fancy curtains. Ooh that sounds like fun. Fuck that I go to castles to see murder holes. I go to castles to see dungeons. Not duvets.
The only time I want to see some rich fuck head living in a castle is when I see them dragged out of it to meet their just ends.
maybe you don't, but lots of people do.
Well let's test that. I mean as other people pointed out there's plenty of places with no monarchy that gets tens of millions of people going to visit their old palaces. But if you want to test it I say let's kill all the English royalty and see how many people come to visit those castles for a while. If it's way less then we'll give a fancy hat to someone new.
That's one way to see it... Countries that got rid of their monarchy, got the money in a more direct way
What do you mean?
They don't have to give money to receive it back. They just keep it, while still having tourists (cf France).
What do you think happened to the wealth of the French king?
Pretty sure the French King isn't bringing in any revenue anymore.
What do you mean?
Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate’s revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.
Crown Estate’s revenues
Well, dispossess them and use the property directly wouldn't hurt either, would it?
tourism, trade, media and the arts.
There might be other ways to promote your image than having an institution that symbolizes colonialism and is hated by many people. Like abolishing said institution to show the global South that you are sorry? That might make you more likable aa well
Sure that is one option. Another one is to just keep them. The Brit chose the latter.