Jump to content

Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Monarchy is based on the idea that some people deserve power and status just because of who their parents are, which is of course incompatible with democracy and equality before the law. There's no reason for them to exist,.at least in modern Western democracies 

 

That happens everywhere ,  not just the monarchy. If your parents are rich and famous you have more wealth and status than a person born to a poor family. It’s not meritocratic but it’s not really affecting democracy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

There are plenty of reasons to support a ceremonial head of state even for the most ardent democrat.  Subsequently, how that ceremonial head of state is chosen really doesn't matter, both theoretically - and indeed empirically.  Elected ceremonial heads of state can pose as many issues for a "democracy" as unelected ceremonial heads of state.

Again, you're hung up on the British Royals.  That is not my argument.

And you're hung up on the need for a ceremonial head of state. 

Remind me, who is yours again...? 

Anyway, why the fuck does anyone even need a purely ceremonial head of state? Elected or otherwise. Tell me what function they perform that cannot be fulfilled by our elected politicians. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, kiko said:

Try to say something mildly critical about the Thai king in Thailand. This guy is permanently breaking laws of several countries just by living where he lives, but every Thai pointing that out would end up in jail. 

He does sound horrible.

 

27 minutes ago, kiko said:

I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot of  things based on feudal or aristocractic history. The obvious example is the trust system. There could be another bonfire of regulations but this time with the goal of kicking out all the remnants from the monarchy.

There are good reasons for trusts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That happens everywhere ,  not just the monarchy. If your parents are rich and famous you have more wealth and status than a person born to a poor family. It’s not meritocratic but it’s not really affecting democracy 

Sure, but there's a difference between that being legally mandated and that person having constitutional powers over everyone else, in many cases that power being absolute, funded with taxpayers money. Plus, it's possible, even if unlikely, for someone to become rich and famous, even without rich and famous parents of their own, while just not being born in the right family in the right order means you have no chance of being king 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Winterfell is Burning said:

Sure, but there's a difference between that being legally mandated and that person having constitutional powers over everyone else, in many cases that power being absolute, funded with taxpayers money. Plus, it's possible, even if unlikely, for someone to become rich and famous, even without rich and famous parents of their own, while just not being born in the right family in the right order means you have no chance of being king 

Well thing is, the Monarchy in the UK has no real constitutional power, it’s basically held hostage to the whims of the people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Having the laws of the land rewritten to accomodate your family's racism indicates that they do wield constitutional power. 

I suspect everything mentioned in that guardian article was part of a negotiation with the governement. The government and the courts are ultimately the people who decide the laws. The Royals might have some influence, mainly in matter related to themselves, but they do not have any real power. A lot of people and institutions have influence in shaping our laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There are good reasons for trusts.

I agree. But not in the way they are set up in the UK and their various entities.

Trusts and their legal equivalents can be abused everywhere, I could just imagine it would be more easy to adjust them when there are no legally entitled nobles left, who profit from them. Seems to work in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kiko said:

I agree. But not in the way they are set up in the UK and their various entities.

Trusts and their legal equivalents can be abused everywhere, I could just imagine it would be more easy to adjust them when there are no legally entitled nobles left, who profit from them. Seems to work in other countries.

We don't have an aristocracy in the US and even the not-so-rich use trusts to protect assets from taxation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Anyway, why the fuck does anyone even need a purely ceremonial head of state? Elected or otherwise. Tell me what function they perform that cannot be fulfilled by our elected politicians. 

They are basically there for the waving and handing out of the cucumbers sandwiches. Freeing up the schedule for the really important persons.  I would hate if my chancellor would have to waste time whenever a new ambassador arrives or some king pops over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kiko said:

I would hate if my chancellor would have to waste time whenever a new ambassador arrives or some king pops over. 

That's what we have Foreign Secretaries for. 

Plenty of countries manage perfectly well without a ceremonial head of state.

Pretty sure we would, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Historically, people get more conservative and more partial to their traditions as they age.

That trend has been broken—at least within the US and the UK.

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think that a country’s overall constitutional system plays a part in that country’s success.  

A modern British King who tried to rule as a Nazi leader would get nowhere, because he would not be obeyed.

First going to need some evidence to support that claim on a constitutional monarchy playing any significant role in a country’s success.

Second—this is vague. What do you mean exactly? If the king fires the prime minister what happens citing their race, sex, or just a lack of respect for fascism what happens? Does the country just continue to act as if the former prime minister is still prime minister? 
Does the U.K do a violent revolution to oust the king?

Hell even if the king just says “I’m a nazi” are you content to let him be the face of the country?

44 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don't think there is any real contradiction between the Monarchy and Democracy, certainly not in the UK.

There is. You happen to value the former based on your lust for hierarchy.

46 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Even the cases Spocky cites, it's just so the Queen and co can get more free stuff.

Costing hundreds of millions of tax payer money.

47 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The rage over the Royal family I think is purely motivated by envy. The problem there is that any problems in your life are not being caused by the Royal family.

I just think people shouldn’t be granted power in government and governor  privilege based on who their parents fucked.

They need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and get off government’s teet.

48 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

your life will not improve one iota, you will not be any richer, you will not be any better off. I'm sure for some people they don't care, they just don't like the Royals and want them to piss off.

Oh booting the royals also gives the public the chance to turn their castles and estates into tourist designations which generates wealth for society.

53 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Personally, I'm pretty content with having a Monarchy,

Of course you, you’ve demonstrated a very hostile attitude towards sort of social liberalism including the concept of democracy.

It comforts you to see government categorize a small amount of elites as being intrinsically owed power.

56 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That doesn't mean we shouldn't trim it, cut loose a few of the hangers on, but even Charlie recognises that. 

You’re trying to frame what your saying as a reasonable concession but all you’re arguing is for the privileges and powers of the monarch to concentrated even more  to a select few because…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny every time I meet friends and relatives from abroad, and I talk about the UK they never want to know more about the Foreign Secretary. I look forward to the 6 season Netflix show about James Cleverly's family history, and hope he is doing ok with the thousands of people standing outside his house waving flags at him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

We don't have an aristocracy in the US and even the not-so-rich use trusts to protect assets from taxation.  

Same here in Germany. But it was possible to have some major changes to the legal construction here. Up to the point where it is almost pointless for most to set one up. I triedB).  And as far as I'm aware they also can't be used to hide ownership. Imagine if you would have to go to your king to tell him that further on all his assets hidden in trusts will be revealed and taxed. Not gonna happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That trend has been broken—at least within the US and the UK.

 

First going to need some evidence to support that claim on a constitutional monarchy playing any significant role in a country’s success.

Second—this is vague. What do you mean exactly? If the king fires the prime minister what happens citing their race, sex, or just a lack of respect for fascism what happens? Does the country just continue to act as if the former prime minister is still prime minister? 
Does the U.K do a violent revolution to oust the king?

Hell even if the king just says “I’m a nazi” are you content to let him be the face of the country?

There is. You happen to value the former based on your lust for hierarchy.

Costing hundreds of millions of tax payer money.

I just think people shouldn’t be granted power in government and governor  privilege based on who their parents fucked.

They need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and get off government’s teet.

Oh booting the royals also gives the public the chance to turn their castles and estates into tourist designations which generates wealth for society.

Of course you, you’ve demonstrated a very hostile attitude towards sort of social liberalism including the concept of democracy.

It comforts you to see government categorize a small amount of elites as being intrinsically owed power.

You’re trying to frame what your saying as a reasonable concession but all you’re arguing is for the privileges and powers of the monarch to concentrated even more  to a select few because…

This is all pretty far-fetched, but if the King says "I'm a Nazi", then he's going to be an ex-King pretty quickly, unless the security forces were also in favour of establishing a Nazi dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It's funny every time I meet friends and relatives from abroad, and I talk about the UK they never want to know more about the Foreign Secretary. I look forward to the 6 season Netflix show about James Cleverly's family history, and hope he is doing ok with the thousands of people standing outside his house waving flags at him.

The royal family can still live without being parasites. They can do what Harry has done and actually work for their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

This is all pretty far-fetched, but if the King says "I'm a Nazi", then he's going to be an ex-King pretty quickly, unless the security forces were also in favour of establishing a Nazi dictatorship.

Varys and others seem to have gotten all their understanding of Monarchy from watching Game of Thrones. I mean, it's not surprising considering where we are, but it doesn't help the discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

This is all pretty far-fetched, but if the King says "I'm a Nazi", then he's going to be an ex-King pretty quickly, unless the security forces were also in favour of establishing a Nazi dictatorship.

So you’re betting on the security forces to just murder him? Imprison him?

How exactly would he be made an ex-king?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...