Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

* Mine is just that it's just kinda silly to have a Queen in 2019. You can go back and forth on the economics and whether others can do that and whether they cost more than they bring in and that all you like, people have. But...I always come back to, "Yeah but it's the future now and we still have a hereditary royal family imbued by a god that most of their subjects don't believe in to rule over the land. Doesn't that just seem daft to anybody else?"

Yo, convinced republican, antimonarchist,  with a special dislike for the Bourbons here. I have a question: so in the UK monarchists also market the monarchy as being cheaper than republics?
Far from my intention to meddle into the politics of other nations, but if it resembles in any way the Spanish monarchy's gambit (which isn't necessarily true, as the Bourbons stand up as particularily sleazy as far as inbred European nobility goes), there are a lot of costs that fall outside the "official" accounts.

Anti-monarchist on principle here because American, but other than preferring republic over monarchy, I don't have a strong opinion towards (or against) the UKs brand of monarchy. As for the UK monarchists saying cheaper than republics, the argument in general, as I understand it, is that the monarchy is expensive because nobles, yadda, yadda and it's a net drain, but the monarchists say that it's not even that expensive and it pays for itself in various ways. Might be a bit of an oversimplification, but that's the gist of the argument.

As for the Windsors having the same gambit as the Bourbons, not sure if you realize the difference in power that they have in their respective countries as there is no way that the British monarchy would be able to get away with the kind of shit I've heard you say that the Spanish monarchy gets away with.

[ChairmanPoo]

Anti-monarchist on principle here because American, but other than preferring republic over monarchy, I don't have a strong opinion towards (or against) the UKs brand of monarchy. As for the UK monarchists saying cheaper than republics, the argument in general, as I understand it, is that the monarchy is expensive because nobles, yadda, yadda and it's a net drain, but the monarchists say that it's not even that expensive and it pays for itself in various ways. Might be a bit of an oversimplification, but that's the gist of the argument.

Spanish monarchists are very fond of claiming the monarchy is CHEAPER than republican goverments. This is based in a highly spurious published budget of the royal family that, for a start, doesn't include all the stuff (palaces, yatches, etc...) that officially belongs to the "National Heritage Board" but are actually for the exclusive disposal of the royal family. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, and not going into their obvious corruption, or their brokering of deals with some of the worst dictatorships in the world.

As for the Windsors having the same gambit as the Bourbons, not sure if you realize the difference in power that they have in their respective countries as there is no way that the British monarchy would be able to get away with the kind of shit I've heard you say that the Spanish monarchy gets away with.

I have no idea. That's why I ask as to whether they're claiming the same crap as Spanish monarchists - that somehow maintaining a royal family and all their trappings is cheaper than having a president.

Like I said, I'm a republican as a matter of principle, regardless of how disgusting I find the royal family in Spain. If I was elsewhere with a less disgusting king, I'd still think the goverment should be a republic.

[smjjames]

Yeah, the UK argument is more 'Republicans: It's a waste of money and an obsolete institution' and 'Monarchists: Oh come on, the government spends WAY more than the monarchy and it pays for itself. Plus the Queen and the other nobles pay taxes for crying out loud!'. I'm sure one of our British friends can give a more in-depth explaination.

[ChairmanPoo]

the kind of shit I've heard you say that the Spanish monarchy gets away with.

HEEEEY

I almost forgot to mention this:  https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/07/20/inenglish/1532088453_748117.html

There they explain the basics of the story, but basically, one of the dowager king's former cronies was on record saying how he used her as a money laundering front.

I'll tell you what happened after that bit of news: Spanish parliament blocked the investigation. They OPENLY SAID that, as per the Spanish constitution, the king can't be held accountable, and thus they closed the matter. 

By the way, this wasn't even the conservatives, this was the "socialist" party that won a no confidence motion a few months ago (with the collaboration of the conservatives, of course. It's not like they were in favor of investigating the fucker).

[scriver]

I don't think heads of state should inherit the role.

This is my mandatory insistence that kings can be elected reminder

[askovdk]

I live in the monarchy of Denmark.
I must confess, that I think our queen is doing an excellent job, and that the crown prince and wife seems to be very capable, - but it’s still fundamentally wrong to inherit any public position, - especially ‘head of state’.

When my friends and I discuss this, the question is always ‘What to put instead?’
We don’t want to move any real power from the parliament to ‘a president’, and we don’t want to have a general election to an empty position (which could then easily end up being filled with whoever won the latest x-factor idol show).

What we have come up with is to elevate the ‘Chair of parliament’ to ‘Head of state’.
In Denmark the ‘chair’ is given to a venerable member of parliament that has the trust and support across parties, and the chair is usually kept until retirement, - i.e. across different government. This seems like a reasonable way to elect a worthy representative for a democratic nation.

[Kagus]

It should be determined by lottery. It's the only way to be fair and consistent.

[TD1]

Do you want a mafia monarch? Cause that's how you get a mafia monarch.

[MorleyDev]

One of the economics arguments you often hear for a UK monarchy is that the numbers can be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that the living and active monarchy in the UK brings in more money in tourism than they cost.

I also have thoughts on the House of Lords: I agree with the basic idea of the role they fill, and even think having them straight-up elected by the populace would just turn it into another House of Commons and then what's even the point*, but would rather it be arranged as an entirely 'meritocracy' instead of keeping the hereditary aspects though. Allocate a portion of seats to scientists with expertise in various fields, a portion to religious leaders*, that kind of thing. Offer up new seats as old ones retire, die, or inevitably disgrace themselves. Call it the House of Enlightened Peers or something.

But I acknowledge the idea probably has at least just as many flaws as the current system anyway. Shit be complicated dawg, yo.

* If elections get involved it's way too easy to end up with them either in complete constant agreement or constant opposition depending on whether they share the same majority.

* an ever decreasing portion to keep it in line with the ever increasing irrelevance of religion in modern life and the public mind

[Criptfeind]

I have no idea. That's why I ask as to whether they're claiming the same crap as Spanish monarchists - that somehow maintaining a royal family and all their trappings is cheaper than having a president.

I'm not from the UK, and I really don't care one way or another about the quaint old world attempts at making your silly little governments, so take it with a grain of salt, but the argument as I've always understood it isn't that the queen is  somehow cheaper then a president (that'd be weird) but rather that

A: The income from the Crown Estate is more then the cost of upkeeping the royal family. So the royal family pays more into the government then the government pays into them.
B: There's a theory that, as MorleyDev pointed out, that the royal family is such a popular symbol of the UK that they personally bring in more tourist dollars then they cost to upkeep.

I have no idea if these are true (well, I'm fairly sure the first one is true, but of course you could just say that the royal family should get nothing and the crown estate should become totally owned by the people of the UK, so w/e)

[smjjames]

That's pretty much the argument I've heard too, that the monarchy pays for itself in various ways. Theres also arguably the cultural value, which Spain doesn't seem to have (that I can tell), but cultural value didn't stop other European monarchs from being overthrown.

As I said earlier, I don't have a strong opinion either way towards the UK brand of monarchy. Spains however, sounds like a piece of shit that should be overthrown.

[Il Palazzo]

The crown estate would still pay for itself, and the castles and mansions would still attract tourism, if the UK got rid of the crown. It's just that you have to get rid of the royalty, not get rid of them and give them back their royal estates.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's pretty much the argument I've heard too, that the monarchy pays for itself in various ways. Theres also arguably the cultural value, which Spain doesn't seem to have (that I can tell), but cultural value didn't stop other European monarchs from being overthrown.

As I said earlier, I don't have a strong opinion either way towards the UK brand of monarchy. Spains however, sounds like a piece of shit that should be overthrown.

Bear in mind you only have my word about this and I'm a declared republican with nationalist leanings, so this is not exactly impartial :p
But yeah, they are corrupt little shits as far as I'm concerned. I wont say anything about the British crown because I tend to abstain from telling citizens of othdr countries what they have tl do. I can tell you that if I was British or Norwegian I'd still be a republican. I'd probably wouldnt have such a dislike of the people in those roles, but I'd oppose the institution as a matter of principle.

[MorleyDev]

Like I said, you can go back and forth on the cost of the Royal Family and the Monarchy.

[smjjames]

I have a suspicion that whoever succeeds Elizabeth and Charles (whether William or Harry or whoever) is going to redefine the monarchy in the 21st century since it's a new generation and Elizabeth has been the defining British monarch of the 20th century.

Then again, the arguments probably won't change much.