Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kroem wrote:
Well Harry has always been a bit of a rebel, so it doesn't surprise me he has chosen a controversial wife as well.

Yeah, but wasn't he the one who showed up to a party in a Nazi uniform? Or was that the other one?
Hope he doesn't repeat that for the bachelor party.


The coverage over here has been odd. A lot of 'Oh she's much more relaxed and casual in front of the cameras (than Kate).'
But, well, yes. She's been an actress for years now. Of course she's more relaxed in front of cameras.

How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest?

We don't. People flatly aren't equal.
The ideal is that everyone is equally responsible under the law, not that everyone is actually equal to each other.

Thanks Voss. Of course I wasn't talking about everyone being equal under the law in the context of the legal privileges Monarchy members have.
I was talking about how every single human being in the planet is equal to each other in every sense.

 Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.

The economic part of this discussion is a non-issue. Is like the cost of death penalty or not death penalty. At the end of the day is so small it doesn't even matter. Is about principles.

But maybe I'm biased because the Spanish Royal family has been put there by a dictator and has a ton, a TON of cases of corruption under his obese belt.

I partially agree with this of course, I don't like the special status that is transferred by lottery. But as I said, money is not really a motivator to get rid of them and in most cases its the majority of the population that wants to keep them for some reason. Most have dug themselves in as an inherent part of national society, which makes it hard to get a majority to agree on turning the country into a republic. I never meant to imply that cost was the issue to me.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.

The economic part of this discussion is a non-issue. Is like the cost of death penalty or not death penalty. At the end of the day is so small it doesn't even matter. Is about principles.

But maybe I'm biased because the Spanish Royal family has been put there by a dictator and has a ton, a TON of cases of corruption under his obese belt.

I partially agree with this of course, I don't like the special status that is transferred by lottery. But as I said, money is not really a motivator to get rid of them and in most cases its the majority of the population that wants to keep them for some reason. Most have dug themselves in as an inherent part of national society, which makes it hard to get a majority to agree on turning the country into a republic. I never meant to imply that cost was the issue to me.

Previous events that ended royal families.

WW1, a massive social upheaval and destruction across Europe.
WW2, Japan. The power of Emparor ended as a massive war that ended up with two cities nuked and many others in ruins.

As you see, it takes massive social upheaval to end a Royal family.

The power of the Emperor was permanently undone following the Jokyu war between supporters of Emperor Go-Toba and the Hojo Shogunate with the Imperial House having long been symbolic but subject to the rule of others prior to that. While the Meiji Restoration on the surface was about restoring the power and authority of the Emperor it was really just about replacing the Shogunate with a new system of government. The Emperor remained mostly symbolic with real political power being held by the Cabinet Ministers of the new government.

Point is the Emperor in WWII, while highly revered and respected, had no real power. If anything the United States went out of its way to preserve the house and seat of the Emperor in the wake of the conflict.

Okay done knit picking now XD

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.

The economic part of this discussion is a non-issue. Is like the cost of death penalty or not death penalty. At the end of the day is so small it doesn't even matter. Is about principles.

But maybe I'm biased because the Spanish Royal family has been put there by a dictator and has a ton, a TON of cases of corruption under his obese belt.

I partially agree with this of course, I don't like the special status that is transferred by lottery. But as I said, money is not really a motivator to get rid of them and in most cases its the majority of the population that wants to keep them for some reason. Most have dug themselves in as an inherent part of national society, which makes it hard to get a majority to agree on turning the country into a republic. I never meant to imply that cost was the issue to me.

Previous events that ended royal families.

WW1, a massive social upheaval and destruction across Europe.
WW2, Japan. The power of Emparor ended as a massive war that ended up with two cities nuked and many others in ruins.

As you see, it takes massive social upheaval to end a Royal family.

Sadly it does, when WW2 ended our queen thought she might be able to rule directly again, seeing democracy as a bad idea, you know because all the horror and occupation of WW2 gave a good chance for a national reset

Of course then we have the tax dodging scandals, the minister of defense having to pay for the maintenance of their leisure ship, the psychic that almost became a sort of Rasputin to the grandmother (she was the daughter of the democracy hater) of our current queen. could go on for a wwhile, but why bother! Fun having a royal family.

 Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.

The economic part of this discussion is a non-issue. Is like the cost of death penalty or not death penalty. At the end of the day is so small it doesn't even matter. Is about principles.

But maybe I'm biased because the Spanish Royal family has been put there by a dictator and has a ton, a TON of cases of corruption under his obese belt.

Every society has social classes, social status, and hierarchies, even those that have preached the ideals of equality. It's been that way since the beginning. And it will continue to be that way until the end of time.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Nor is it unprincipled.

I imagine that if the monarchy tried to except any actual power, other than agreeing with what parliament tells them to do, there would be a quick chance to the power they are given.

It seems like the only actual power the Queen wants is to troll an anti-UN parliament by wearing a pro-UN hat to give her speech.

 Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its also a choice. Personally I'm not a fan of the birth lottery, in my country there are also a few more scandals that make you roll your eyes. The British family seems a bit tame besides the ones Ketara mentions. But most people still like it enough to keep it, not to mention the hassle of replacing the entire system with something new. As d-usa mentions, the cost might not be worth it to replace them.

Barring a major scandal that puts the positions of royal families in jeopardy, there likely won't be any financial reason or popular majority for getting rid of Europe's royal families.

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.

The economic part of this discussion is a non-issue. Is like the cost of death penalty or not death penalty. At the end of the day is so small it doesn't even matter. Is about principles.

But maybe I'm biased because the Spanish Royal family has been put there by a dictator and has a ton, a TON of cases of corruption under his obese belt.

The British have always been good at these kind of messy compromises. We call it "fudge", and as long as we're happy with it, the situation will stay the same. We're not that concerned with fundamental principles so much as everyone getting along.

The real power of the UK monarchy was eroded over a period of hundreds of years, starting from about 1200AD.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We call it "fudge", and as long as we're happy with it, the situation will stay the same.

And honestly, how can anyone be unhappy with fudge!

 Galas wrote:

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.
.

If Prince/Princess such and such came around to my house for a cup of tea, they'd get the same treatment as any other mildly important stranger I invited into my house (my line manager, a prospective homebuyer, etc). That is to say, a mild effort to clean up and make myself presentable, but nothing else. I might be in favour of the monarchy, but that doesn't mean for one minute that I have believe for even one second that any of those little rich kids are any better than I am. I'd still talk to, insult, and compliment them in the same way I would anyone else. I'm entirely egalitarian about it.

We've picked their family to sit in the fancy chairs, wear the silly hats, and kiss babies in exchange for getting to hang around our nice historical buildings. If they're not interested in the duties, fair play, they can bugger off and retire from the public eye somewhere and we'll stick someone else in the funny bling. Parliament has done it before, it could easily do it again. The Crown Estate is separate to the individual Monarch, after all.

We're all entirely equal, it's just that the job of the Royal Family is 'Constitutional Head of State' with several minor ambassadorial roles attached for their relatives. They're no more important or better than the rest of us than the Minister of Foreign Affairs is. And any trumped up little blue blood who tried to go all Divine Right of Kings would soon be rudely corrected.

 Ketara wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.
.

If Prince/Princess such and such came around to my house for a cup of tea, they'd get the same treatment as any other mildly important stranger I invited into my house (my line manager, a prospective homebuyer, etc). That is to say, a mild effort to clean up and make myself presentable, but nothing else. I might be in favour of the monarchy, but that doesn't mean for one minute that I have believe for even one second that any of those little rich kids are any better than I am. I'd still talk to, insult, and compliment them in the same way I would anyone else. I'm entirely egalitarian about it.

Sure, but going by the more general concept Galas means (I assume), what you state for the British royals isn't possible everywhere. Idk how it is in Spain, but the Netherlands still have archaic laws on insulting the crown and they are still brought up from time to time although no one really gets convicted. Of course Thailand is at the opposite end of the UK with how harshly they punish any insults. We can be egalitarian about it, but the state might not be. Just out of curiousity, does the UK still have archaic laws like the above on the books that are never used? It feels like the answer is a no?

There are certain rights the Crown still has left over, but I've never heard of any of them being used in a bad fashion.

For example, sometimes metal detectorists who go grubbing around archaelogical sites for gold and silver artifacts can get nailed for keeping what they find (all found gold and silver found in the Isles must be gifted to the Crown in exchange for current market value). I think I've read about Polish lads who were catching our wildlife for supper getting prosecuted under the laws saying that only the Queen is allowed to ambush swans. She also technically owns all dolphins and wales in British waters, which helps protect them. She gives away special silver 3p 'Maundy money' coins to pensioners once a year. Stuff like that.

In virtually all such cases, the 'Powers of the Crown' are more peripheral and used to stop people engaging into dickish behaviour where it might be more problematic to use alternative laws. There's nothing illegal about coughing -'spanker'- and making jerking motions with your hand when Prince Charles walks by that I know of. The City of Gloucester has to pay the Queen a tax of a large eel pie once a year, but I think that's the most onerous special treatment cause for the Monarch we have.

 Ketara wrote:
There are certain rights the Crown still has left over, but I've never heard of any of them being used in a bad fashion.

For example, sometimes metal detectorists who go grubbing around archaelogical sites for gold and silver artifacts can get nailed for keeping what they find (all found gold and silver found in the Isles must be gifted to the Crown in exchange for current market value). I think I've read about Polish lads who were catching our wildlife for supper getting prosecuted under the laws saying that only the Queen is allowed to ambush swans. She also technically owns all dolphins and wales in British waters, which helps protect them. She gives away special silver 3p 'Maundy money' coins to pensioners once a year. Stuff like that.

In virtually all such cases, the 'Powers of the Crown' are more peripheral and used to stop people engaging into dickish behaviour where it might be more problematic to use alternative laws. There's nothing illegal about coughing -'spanker'- and making jerking motions with your hand when Prince Charles walks by that I know of. The City of Gloucester has to pay the Queen a tax of a large eel pie once a year, but I think that's the most onerous special treatment cause for the Monarch we have.

No real law against insulting royal family bar breach of the peace, general laws against public indecency etc.

I mean yeah if you ran a bunch of articles attacking a Royal onun based grounds that may be slander or such, but no special Royal laws. The queen might have some protections like she cannot be dragged into a court etc, but no special powers to send someonee to the tower for a insult. Those times are long gone, and even if powers remain, there has been a long held agreement to not use them, or only with guidance of parliament etc. Only time maybe used is when Australia had a massive budget issue and things would have gone badly, the Royal powers intervened, formed new government and passed a budget to keep country running and keep lights on.

 Ketara wrote:
There are certain rights the Crown still has left over, but I've never heard of any of them being used in a bad fashion.

For example, sometimes metal detectorists who go grubbing around archaelogical sites for gold and silver artifacts can get nailed for keeping what they find (all found gold and silver found in the Isles must be gifted to the Crown in exchange for current market value). I think I've read about Polish lads who were catching our wildlife for supper getting prosecuted under the laws saying that only the Queen is allowed to ambush swans. She also technically owns all dolphins and wales in British waters, which helps protect them. She gives away special silver 3p 'Maundy money' coins to pensioners once a year. Stuff like that.

In virtually all such cases, the 'Powers of the Crown' are more peripheral and used to stop people engaging into dickish behaviour where it might be more problematic to use alternative laws. There's nothing illegal about coughing -'spanker'- and making jerking motions with your hand when Prince Charles walks by that I know of. The City of Gloucester has to pay the Queen a tax of a large eel pie once a year, but I think that's the most onerous special treatment cause for the Monarch we have.

Thanks, very interesting. Abolishing some of the laws you mention would just see them replaced with archeological based and anti poaching/wildlife protection laws I woupd think. Curious how different laws are concerning the monarchy between two neighbouring constitutional monarchies. Most of the UK's laws on this seem to be quite old and funny (the pie one) in a sense. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, appreciate it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There are certain rights the Crown still has left over, but I've never heard of any of them being used in a bad fashion.

For example, sometimes metal detectorists who go grubbing around archaelogical sites for gold and silver artifacts can get nailed for keeping what they find (all found gold and silver found in the Isles must be gifted to the Crown in exchange for current market value). I think I've read about Polish lads who were catching our wildlife for supper getting prosecuted under the laws saying that only the Queen is allowed to ambush swans. She also technically owns all dolphins and wales in British waters, which helps protect them. She gives away special silver 3p 'Maundy money' coins to pensioners once a year. Stuff like that.

In virtually all such cases, the 'Powers of the Crown' are more peripheral and used to stop people engaging into dickish behaviour where it might be more problematic to use alternative laws. There's nothing illegal about coughing -'spanker'- and making jerking motions with your hand when Prince Charles walks by that I know of. The City of Gloucester has to pay the Queen a tax of a large eel pie once a year, but I think that's the most onerous special treatment cause for the Monarch we have.

Thanks, very interesting. Abolishing some of the laws you mention would just see them replaced with archeological based and anti poaching/wildlife protection laws I woupd think. Curious how different laws are concerning the monarchy between two neighbouring constitutional monarchies. Most of the UK's laws on this seem to be quite old and funny (the pie one) in a sense. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, appreciate it.

we have a habit of never repealing old laws just not enforcing them. the thing is older the law, the harder it is to repeal here at times.

Its easier to ignore a ancient law sometimes. Just joins the pile of unsed laws in the arcives as a curio.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There are certain rights the Crown still has left over, but I've never heard of any of them being used in a bad fashion.

For example, sometimes metal detectorists who go grubbing around archaelogical sites for gold and silver artifacts can get nailed for keeping what they find (all found gold and silver found in the Isles must be gifted to the Crown in exchange for current market value). I think I've read about Polish lads who were catching our wildlife for supper getting prosecuted under the laws saying that only the Queen is allowed to ambush swans. She also technically owns all dolphins and wales in British waters, which helps protect them. She gives away special silver 3p 'Maundy money' coins to pensioners once a year. Stuff like that.

In virtually all such cases, the 'Powers of the Crown' are more peripheral and used to stop people engaging into dickish behaviour where it might be more problematic to use alternative laws. There's nothing illegal about coughing -'spanker'- and making jerking motions with your hand when Prince Charles walks by that I know of. The City of Gloucester has to pay the Queen a tax of a large eel pie once a year, but I think that's the most onerous special treatment cause for the Monarch we have.

Thanks, very interesting. Abolishing some of the laws you mention would just see them replaced with archeological based and anti poaching/wildlife protection laws I woupd think. Curious how different laws are concerning the monarchy between two neighbouring constitutional monarchies. Most of the UK's laws on this seem to be quite old and funny (the pie one) in a sense. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, appreciate it.

we have a habit of never repealing old laws just not enforcing them. the thing is older the law, the harder it is to repeal here at times.

Its easier to ignore a ancient law sometimes. Just joins the pile of unsed laws in the arcives as a curio.

Same here, scrapping laws often takes more effort than its worth when its already not used anymore.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Look, more people who get to be married on the publics dime and get $$$$ off peoples hard work while people in their country live of scraps.
How have you brits not done away with this archaic system yet?

Eh, I'll take the royal family over the Kardashians in terms of "rich family that people are inordinately interested in".

And I think the royals have a useful role in being a patriotic symbol that's mostly non-political. When that "symbol of our country" role is open to being snatched up by political leaders, you end up with the cults of personality that you can see to various extremes in countries like Russia or Zimbabwe.

About time the royals upgraded the gene pool. They were getting a bit fugly.

 Elemental wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Look, more people who get to be married on the publics dime and get $$$$ off peoples hard work while people in their country live of scraps.
How have you brits not done away with this archaic system yet?

Eh, I'll take the royal family over the Kardashians in terms of "rich family that people are inordinately interested in".

And I think the royals have a useful role in being a patriotic symbol that's mostly non-political. When that "symbol of our country" role is open to being snatched up by political leaders, you end up with the cults of personality that you can see to various extremes in countries like Russia or Zimbabwe.

Aye also surprising events, After Grenfall tower the PM was scared to go, got booed, did not talk to people and hid way from it. It took a 91 year old woman to do the ob of her government. awful gov admittedly... but they went places half our political elite seemed to avoid.

The queen and Prince William went, talked to people, got cheered, actually was willing to face people. William and Harry went to another event.
I know different responsibilities but still.

They did step in and do the job needed at the time when the PM was hopless.

Sometimes useful to have a backup in place...

I used to be more of a republican, but now I am pretty happy with the royal family. I acknowledge that idealogical purity demands we get rid of them and institute an elected head of state, but I look at the horrible mess we are making of our elections and the dreadful condition they have got the country into and I feel pragmatically we are better off to stick with Brenda and co.

If we are to start re-constituting the UK, I would do it by bringing in some form of proportional representation.

 Frazzled wrote:
About time the royals upgraded the gene pool. They were getting a bit

If Charles is indeed Harry's Daddy...and not this cad and bounder.



Major James Hewitt. Diana had an affair with him around the same time.

 Galas wrote:
Thanks Voss. Of course I wasn't talking about everyone being equal under the law in the context of the legal privileges Monarchy members have.
I was talking about how every single human being in the planet is equal to each other in every sense.

Whilst the monarch has certain legal privileges (being the head of state), I'm not sure that applies to anyone else. What can Harry legally do that someone else couldn't? Bear in mind he's going to be under much more scrunity than almost anyone else on the planet.

What's the benefit in getting rid of them? They'd just turn into the Windsors - a collosally wealthy family, have no public appearances to do and have no reason to give estate proceeds to the koffers. They generate more than they get, anyway. So we'd make ourselves a little poorer and lose something that generates a lot of tourism.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Thanks, very interesting. Abolishing some of the laws you mention would just see them replaced with archeological based and anti poaching/wildlife protection laws I woupd think. Curious how different laws are concerning the monarchy between two neighbouring constitutional monarchies. Most of the UK's laws on this seem to be quite old and funny (the pie one) in a sense. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, appreciate it.

The Royal Estate handles some fun traditions all year round. There's the opening of Parliament, where the Queen has to send someone to bang on Parliament's door (and be refused entry). She has a Professor of Ornithology tag and monitor all the swans on her behalf. There's the Royal poet who is paid with a cask of sherry every year.

Then you have the absurd taxes, She sends someone to drink the three glasses of port paid as tribute by the owner of Sauchlemuir annually. Great Yarmouth owes her precisely one hundred herrings baked in twenty four pasties. The current Duke of Wellington has to send her a French tricolour flag on the anniversary of Waterloo, and the Duke of Marlbrough a Fleur De Lys on the Battle of Blenheim. There are others.

There's really quite a lot of daft but interesting traditions around the Monarch, and frankly, from a cultural perspective alone, I'm happy to keep Brenda and her cohorts on. So long as they're not making mischief, they represent the official separation of powers (something many countries struggle with), provide a useful neutral focus for nationalism, and stop our Prime Ministers from getting too up themselves (every Prime Minister has to report to the Queen once a week and get her advice, whether they like it or not).

Reportedly Brenda's best "hairy eyeball" look puts Tommy Lee Jones's in the shade.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Reportedly Brenda's best "hairy eyeball" look puts Tommy Lee Jones's in the shade.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Is not about cost, is about equality. How can we have a democracy based on the idea that everyone is an equal, when theres a special group of people that isn't equal to the rest? I know, I know, we can have democracies with royal families, and are much more equal and free for their citizens than compared with many, many republics from Africa, or Southamerica, etc... but that is a red herring.
.

If Prince/Princess such and such came around to my house for a cup of tea, they'd get the same treatment as any other mildly important stranger I invited into my house (my line manager, a prospective homebuyer, etc). That is to say, a mild effort to clean up and make myself presentable, but nothing else. I might be in favour of the monarchy, but that doesn't mean for one minute that I have believe for even one second that any of those little rich kids are any better than I am. I'd still talk to, insult, and compliment them in the same way I would anyone else. I'm entirely egalitarian about it.

Sure, but going by the more general concept Galas means (I assume), what you state for the British royals isn't possible everywhere. Idk how it is in Spain, but the Netherlands still have archaic laws on insulting the crown and they are still brought up from time to time although no one really gets convicted. Of course Thailand is at the opposite end of the UK with how harshly they punish any insults. We can be egalitarian about it, but the state might not be. Just out of curiousity, does the UK still have archaic laws like the above on the books that are never used? It feels like the answer is a no?

In Spain we have laws about insulting the Crown and the Royal family, and satirical magazines have been forced to change their front pages, or receive economic penaltys for it. But then we have even had recent cases where one of our "Infantas" (The daugthers of the King Juan Carlos, and the older sisters of our actual King Fernando) had his signature in a ton of property contrats at his name, in a very big corruption case from her and his husband (Case Nös) and she literally was declared innocent of all kind of punishment because she declared that "That was all job of my husband".
That increased the feeling that our royalty is immune to any kind of punishment, no matter what it does. Not talking about about the fortune of the no longer king Juan Carlos I that he inherited from Franco... yeah, our Monarchy is much more dirty than the English one.

As I said, this isn't unique to our royalty, because our political class is the same. But one can go agaisn't both of them. Sorry for the offtopic, still. This wasn't about the pros and cons of monarchies, etc... I'll stop talking about this.

IIRC the City of London pays a rent of some strangely specific amount ,like 8 pounds, plus a barrel of ale, two bill hooks, three fish and a packet of crisps to the Queen each year, dating back to an event hundreds of years ago.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm going to guess that between the income from the Crown Estates and from Tourism, the UK probably spends less on the entire Royal Family than the US spends on all the past and present first families.

I've heard The Royals actually generate a net income for England between estates and tourism.

England had their fair share of monarchs which abused the treasury in the past, so they have a good amount of safeguards against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I acknowledge that idealogical purity demands we get rid of them and institute an elected head of state

Isn't that what the PM is? He is effectively the President of the United Kingdom and he gets elected.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


Every society has social classes, social status, and hierarchies, even those that have preached the ideals of equality. It's been that way since the beginning. And it will continue to be that way until the end of time.

There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Nor is it unprincipled.

Given that most societies have developed social classes based on an armed warrior class subjugating a much larger worker class then setting a single or few members up heritable rulers, I think this is debatable. Especially when bloody revolutions have been (and continue to be) fought over this very issue. It will likely continue, though, so long as one man can force another to do his will.

Of course such systems tend to be vigorously defended by those who benefit from them. Whether one is a freedom fighter or terrorist,, patriot or rebel is largely a matter of perspective! And today's revolutionaries often become tomorrow's tyrants.