Thread: Brits: Explain Your Monarchy

If you have to ask...

Nobody gives fuck about Brits and their silly kings and queens.

if you wanna look smart, ask why Japan kept its monarchy. The answer may be a bit more interesting, and sinister, since they are all war criminals to begin with.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Why is Prince William getting married such a big deal? Is this simply nothing different than something like Brangelina's drama? As I understand it, the monarchy is nothing more than a tourist attraction now. Prince Williams claim to fame is being the son of a person who was the daughter of someone else and so on back to someone who claimed that God said they owned everyone. Do brits really care about this? Do they like spending millions and millions to keep up what are essentially celebrities?

Essentially, what makes William any different than any other Brit?

You mainly answered it yourself with the bolded part! Everything else is well explained in this book:

European monarchies exist in Spain, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark ( in case I didn´t forget one).
Apart from beeing historic relics they also serve practical purposes. A respected King or Queen standing above political bickering can for example be helpful in a country with strong centrifugal powers ( Spain/ Belgium f.e.), can also serve as an impartial head of state not depending on pleasing certain interest groups and in small countries ( Luxembourg f.e.) the monarchy also symbolises national culture and what makes a country special ( at least to many). Glamour is probably the least important reason to keep it.

But Im talking about idolzing what is essentially the epitome of the lazy rich for nothing more than they were born to someone born to someone else who claimed to have divine authority hundreds of years. And then he marries a girl, and they call her Princess? Which means nothing, because she and he have no actual power. They basically inherit by birth a public tourism position which gives them a palace and millions of dollars. That is really strange. And I only bring it up because even OUR news is idolizing them.

Originally Posted by jviehe

But Im talking about idolzing what is essentially the epitome of the lazy rich for nothing more than they were born to someone born to someone else who claimed to have divine authority hundreds of years. And then he marries a girl, and they call her Princess? Which means nothing, because she and he have no actual power. They basically inherit by birth a public tourism position which gives them a palace and millions of dollars. That is really strange. And I only bring it up because even OUR news is idolizing them.

don't ask me. In my society, their grand grand fathers and mothers should have ended their reign on the guillotine like the Romanovs and Louis 16th. Exactly like the 70% of the Fortune 500 that are inherited into wealth and prestige.

The Japanese royal family btw, are the extreme grotesque version of the above in that they are actually responsible for the same war crimes as Hitler. And they are paraded and celebrated by a nation even now. Fuckin disgusting.

Originally Posted by WFCY

don't ask me. In my society, their grand grand fathers and mothers should have ended their reign on the guillotine like the Romanovs and Louis 16th. Exactly like the 70% of the Fortune 500 that are inherited into wealth and prestige.

The Japanese royal family btw, are the extreme grotesque version of the above in that they are actually responsible for the same war crimes as Hitler. And they are paraded and celebrated by a nation even now. Fuckin disgusting.

Except that in the US, inhertience is earned property that is passed down. The royal family in Britain doesnt actually own their palace or most of their stuff. Sure they get a salary, and that SHOULD be passed down. But the rest is owned by the govt.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Except that in the US, inhertience is earned property that is passed down. The royal family in Britain doesnt actually own their palace or most of their stuff. Sure they get a salary, and that SHOULD be passed down. But the rest is owned by the govt.

U don't give a whole lot of credit to people who had to command armies, defeat enemies in massive battles, slaughter hundreds of thousands, enslave the same number, annex dozens of minor nations, discover new worlds and found new nations, who made an empire for themselves. Making a few million dolloars on the stock exchange is obviously a more difficult achievement.

Except that there is only one Napoleon, one George 3rd, and one Victoria. lol.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Except that in the US, inhertience is earned property that is passed down. The royal family in Britain doesnt actually own their palace or most of their stuff. Sure they get a salary, and that SHOULD be passed down. But the rest is owned by the govt.

You misunderstand everything. The govt. is owned by the monarch. You see, a monarchy is a private entity, just like a family owned business like Ford.

In a republic, the govt. is owned by the public as a collective. A republic is a cooperative entity, just like a kolchos. What a "beautiful" socialistic idea that is!

Originally Posted by Voland

European monarchies exist in Spain, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark ( in case I didn´t forget one).
...

No, you did not forget one, but two: Liechtenstein and Monaco.

Originally Posted by WFCY

U don't give a whole lot of credit to people who had to command armies, defeat enemies in massive battles, slaughter hundreds of thousands, enslave the same number, annex dozens of minor nations, discover new worlds and found new nations, who made an empire for themselves. Making a few million dolloars on the stock exchange is obviously a more difficult achievement.

Except that there is only one Napoleon, one George 3rd, and one Victoria. lol.

I dont see what that has to do with anything. The Queen of England and her family does not own anything significant, and has no power, according to the laws of GB. It has no comparison to the wealthy in the US.

Originally Posted by jviehe

I dont see what that has to do with anything. The Queen of England and her family does not own anything significant, and has no power, according to the laws of GB. It has no comparison to the wealthy in the US.

Aristocracy is aristocracy. It has no place in the US, which is why we should tax large estates - to prevent the creation of lordships.

Next they'll be wanting us to stop going to dentists.

Originally Posted by DGG

You misunderstand everything. The govt. is owned by the monarch. You see, a monarchy is a private entity, just like a family owned business like Ford.

In a republic, the govt. is owned by the public as a collective. A republic is a cooperative entity, just like a kolchos. What a "beautiful" socialistic idea that is!

Thats not really how that works. First off, in GB, its a constitutional monarchy. The laws, which the people consent to, establish the powers of the monarchy, which is actually nothing more than a family of people, and has no real power or assets. For all purposes, the monarchy is basically a dept of the govt.

In a republic, the govt WORKS for the people. Indeed, this industry is owned by the people, and you could call that socialist, or maybe communal. I wouldnt call it beautiful. Its not in service of socialism however, so its moot.