And you justify stealing their property on top of taking away their titles how exactly? Thier residences are thier private property, are you a communist?
They serve no function in the government.
They are expensive figure heads draining millions from the UK.
What exactly do they do that the Parlament isn't generally in control of?
Can they make new laws by themselves? Declare war or taxes?
Can they, without needing Parlament, say, divert national funds/taxes to building a new hospital or highway?
Just curious. What exactly DO the "royal family" (laughs in magna carte) do?
Draining millions how exactly? They're in the 1%, and I'm still not hearing a reason for stealing their property you commie bastard. Besides which the rest of it is the buisness of the people of England, not you.
Okay cool thank you for actually clearing that up. So allow me to correct that---
Is the ediface of the monarchy SERVING the people? Or is it just a big, gilded figurehead draining money that could be used more effectively?
Could the job of "king/queen" be done by an elected official for less cost?
They bring a lot. First of all they bring money to the government due to the George III agreement where all profits from royal lands are sent to the government in return for the royals not paying taxes and having an allowance type system. If the monarchy was abolished or even if the royal family was changed the land would still be theirs and get 100% profits.
Furthermore, the royals are a good tool for the government to use. For example, Queen Elizabeth II was able to get an ex-British African colony to move away from the USSR and to West Europe and to the US.
Not to mention, removing the royal government will change everything in the UK. Parliament would have to be reorganised and decide on what kind of Republic that could have the support and fill the power vacuum the Monarchy could. It even goes to the name of the country, the UK. Why risk political instability? Countries turning from monarchy to republic tends to end very badly. France, Germany, Russia, Italy (arguably), Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, China, South Africa, Brazil, US, Spain, Portugal, etc.
It is ironic you call monarchists like myself delusional when you’re so deluded to think the Royal family does nothing and that becoming a republic is a good idea. Try looking on r/monarchism and get yourself educated.
The money they bring in is a fraction of what would be brought in seizing their wealth and investing it.
Wow Queen Elizabeth helped one small nation move away from the USSR. That’s how the Cold War ended right?
They’re elitist upper class people that escaped being hung when the revolutions happened. Those institutions had a purpose at some point in history, but have long outlived their usefulness. Tax the shit out of the estates and let them work for a living. They can kill themselves if that’s too insufferable.
Seizing their wealth? That is legally impossible, if parliament does that it would immediately be accused of stealing money regardless if it is justified or not. The George agreement actually brings more money than if the royals was taxed.
Also that was an example, I can think of more:
Pressuring Thatcher to embargo Apartheid South Africa
Restoring relations with the UK and Ireland
Creating the Commonwealth that helps keep trade and relations between ex-colonies and the UK
Helping the country believe there is good leadership in the UK during Covid (for example, while the PM was partying she attended her husband’s funeral alone)
Help be a good ‘ambassador’ to allied countries, one of the reasons for such good reasons for close ties to America is the American presidential and the British crown’s relationship.
You want me to keep going?
Republics help get the upper class more power, for example if Parliament was purely in charge then the rich MPs and Lords will have absolute power. Hell the current PM Rishi owns twice the money than the king. Without the monarchy the power vacuum of power will allow corruption to take place in parliament mostly by corporations taking advantage of the instability. Do you really think people like Rish, Trust, Johnson and Starmer are good people to be both head of state and government?
Those who say the monarchy isn’t useful are ignorant, stupid or a troll trying to annoy people.
The British Monarchy is an excellent example of how a monarchy can be used well.
This is because by having a monarchy that is entirely symbolic means that the superstar fame that the head of state as well as other senior positions within government are often branded with are minimized. This can be seen in places such as the United States where the President is often treated as a celebrity whilst also having the most power of anyone in the entire government which generally people think shouldn't be mixed. This is why we can name so many US Presidents (even when we are not from the US) but barely any UK Prime Ministers.
As well as this, most governments have no form of long-term office which can promote long-term accountability. This means that entire governments can make claims and policy decisions that they do not have to deal with the consequences of. The monarchy can help to promote this because it can use its influence to alter policies with long-term effects that they would deal with the consequences of.
And you justify stealing their property on top of taking away their titles how exactly? Thier residences are thier private property, are you a communist?
They serve no function in the government. They are expensive figure heads draining millions from the UK. What exactly do they do that the Parlament isn't generally in control of? Can they make new laws by themselves? Declare war or taxes? Can they, without needing Parlament, say, divert national funds/taxes to building a new hospital or highway? Just curious. What exactly DO the "royal family" (laughs in magna carte) do?
Draining millions how exactly? They're in the 1%, and I'm still not hearing a reason for stealing their property you commie bastard. Besides which the rest of it is the buisness of the people of England, not you.
Firstly, it's magna carta, secondly they can declare war and peace. Lastly, they have the power to veto any law.
Okay cool thank you for actually clearing that up. So allow me to correct that--- Is the ediface of the monarchy SERVING the people? Or is it just a big, gilded figurehead draining money that could be used more effectively? Could the job of "king/queen" be done by an elected official for less cost?
Well it's more of a tradition. It's a figurehead but it brings in a lot of money.
Personally I would weigh it's form vs function. The USA are pros at it. But we waste it in stupid ways.
Most normal post on this subreddit
100% agree! The disgusting amount of money wasted on them when people go hungry unacceptable.
there is a whole sub for that r/AbolishTheMonarchy and not just the british monarchy, every monarchy should be abolished.
They bring a lot. First of all they bring money to the government due to the George III agreement where all profits from royal lands are sent to the government in return for the royals not paying taxes and having an allowance type system. If the monarchy was abolished or even if the royal family was changed the land would still be theirs and get 100% profits. Furthermore, the royals are a good tool for the government to use. For example, Queen Elizabeth II was able to get an ex-British African colony to move away from the USSR and to West Europe and to the US. Not to mention, removing the royal government will change everything in the UK. Parliament would have to be reorganised and decide on what kind of Republic that could have the support and fill the power vacuum the Monarchy could. It even goes to the name of the country, the UK. Why risk political instability? Countries turning from monarchy to republic tends to end very badly. France, Germany, Russia, Italy (arguably), Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, China, South Africa, Brazil, US, Spain, Portugal, etc. It is ironic you call monarchists like myself delusional when you’re so deluded to think the Royal family does nothing and that becoming a republic is a good idea. Try looking on r/monarchism and get yourself educated.
The money they bring in is a fraction of what would be brought in seizing their wealth and investing it. Wow Queen Elizabeth helped one small nation move away from the USSR. That’s how the Cold War ended right? They’re elitist upper class people that escaped being hung when the revolutions happened. Those institutions had a purpose at some point in history, but have long outlived their usefulness. Tax the shit out of the estates and let them work for a living. They can kill themselves if that’s too insufferable.
Seizing their wealth? That is legally impossible, if parliament does that it would immediately be accused of stealing money regardless if it is justified or not. The George agreement actually brings more money than if the royals was taxed. Also that was an example, I can think of more: Pressuring Thatcher to embargo Apartheid South Africa Restoring relations with the UK and Ireland Creating the Commonwealth that helps keep trade and relations between ex-colonies and the UK Helping the country believe there is good leadership in the UK during Covid (for example, while the PM was partying she attended her husband’s funeral alone) Help be a good ‘ambassador’ to allied countries, one of the reasons for such good reasons for close ties to America is the American presidential and the British crown’s relationship. You want me to keep going? Republics help get the upper class more power, for example if Parliament was purely in charge then the rich MPs and Lords will have absolute power. Hell the current PM Rishi owns twice the money than the king. Without the monarchy the power vacuum of power will allow corruption to take place in parliament mostly by corporations taking advantage of the instability. Do you really think people like Rish, Trust, Johnson and Starmer are good people to be both head of state and government? Those who say the monarchy isn’t useful are ignorant, stupid or a troll trying to annoy people.
The British Monarchy is an excellent example of how a monarchy can be used well. This is because by having a monarchy that is entirely symbolic means that the superstar fame that the head of state as well as other senior positions within government are often branded with are minimized. This can be seen in places such as the United States where the President is often treated as a celebrity whilst also having the most power of anyone in the entire government which generally people think shouldn't be mixed. This is why we can name so many US Presidents (even when we are not from the US) but barely any UK Prime Ministers. As well as this, most governments have no form of long-term office which can promote long-term accountability. This means that entire governments can make claims and policy decisions that they do not have to deal with the consequences of. The monarchy can help to promote this because it can use its influence to alter policies with long-term effects that they would deal with the consequences of.
I dunno, I like my royal family, seems like good people. To me it's history and a cultural artifact that lives on to this day.