Latest on MJJC

Politics: British Monarchy

King

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
27
Points
0
Dear Members,

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I was wondering what your opinions were of the British monarchy or monarchies in general; constitutional or absolute.
 
King said:
Dear Members,

As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I was wondering what your opinions were of the British monarchy or monarchies in general; constitutional or absolute.
Click to expand...
Good topic.

Well obviously an absolute monarchy is no good. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. Saudis are the most suppressed people in the world. It's terrible.

On the other hand, a constitutional monarchy seams to work fairly well. At least for me, being Australia. The Queen is merely a figure-head and doesn't really make any decisions. That's left up to the parliament. And members of parliament are democratically elected. See, because my main problem with a monarchy is that the monarch is not democratically elected.

But although I'm fine with being apart of a constitutional monarchy, I still think Australia should break away and become a Republic.
 
I like the monarchy and constitutional monarchies in general. I'm from a republic though and I don't think that we always completely understand the role a constitutional monarch plays in a kingdom. But in any case, I think a monarchy can add so much to a country in several ways and I always find it sad when I go to a country that has a strong and rich history of monarchy but has since abolished it. In some of those countries there's signs of royalty and royal splendour everywhere and yet there's no monarchy - I sometimes find it a bit haunting and sad.
 
waste of money and totally ridiculous. interms of ppl having such grandure and wealth based on nothing but birth right.when there are those with nothing. bowing to ppl like they are some sort of god
 
I'm ok with a monarchy system. They just have to keep out of politics!
Think it works fine everywhere in Scandinavia also in the UK.
The german system with a president who's supposed to be just representing the country and not coming from one political side... with him being elected and usually a formerly member of one of the political parties... that's just eye washing and not working out really that great... looks foul if one gets what I mean.
A monarchy saves so much of the history of a country... I certainly do like that.
 
Monarchy is great!
It's very traditional, and I know for sure that in Denmark, the royal family is so good PR for Denmark, that even though we pay to them, they still make a LOT of money to denmark.

When prince Frederik married Mary (she's from Australia) the sales of danish products increased many 100 %. For an example Royal Copenhagen sold for many many million of dollars in Australia, they've never did that before. And many other danish products sold extremely well after Fredrik married Mary.

And all over the world, whenever the Danish royal familiy have been visiting, danish products sell good for some time.

so people who claim that it is expensive to have a royal familiy - that's crap! They make soo much good for the country!

It's great P.R. and the traditions are nice. It's national history.

Hopefully we will have the Monarchy in Denmark in many many hundreds of years too.
 
Did you hear how they asked for like millions of pounds from the government to refurnish Buckingham Palace? Hello, credit crunch, can you put up my benefits please, thank you :D
 
Jabz said:
Did you hear how they asked for like millions of pounds from the government to refurnish Buckingham Palace? Hello, credit crunch, can you put up my benefits please, thank you :D
Click to expand...

I remember hearing not long ago that the Queen was asking for a pay rise. lmao
 
Around in 1995 I became quite obsessed with the Brittish monarchy. :D I love the royals. And IMO the Brittish monarchy and Scandinavian monarchies work well. I know that they take a lot of tax payers money and it may not be fair that some people get everything as a birth gift but that's the way it has always been. And I think it's wonderful how Prince Charles is pro organic food and nature. Royals are doing great charity work. Monarchy is like magic, a part of history.
There almost was a monarchy in Finland too. The king was supposed to be from Germany but it never came true because the king-to-be never travelled to Finland and never took the crown. I don't know why they coulnd't just choose just some finnish person for the "job". :smilerolleyes:
 
First of all... a president is not doing his job for nothing. And all presidents a country ever has is getting a huge retirement salery.
I'm not sure a monarchy is that much more expensive... cuz there were times we in germany were not paying less than 8 presidents... one actual one and seven others still in retirement.
Next thing... those guys in the royal families are prepared for their job from early childhood on. Those families nowadays are comparable to companies with the governments of the countries as their bosses. There are regular negotiations about payments between boss and employee (in this case the employee might has historically the title of a king).
I've seen that on german TV about Sweden and Norway... these countries do profit enourmously from their royal families.
As a matter of fact the german president can't compete with that at all... there was a calculation in that TV docu also... he's not bringing in half of a quarter of what the Swedish Monarchy stands for in Swedens budget. Still he get a pretty high salery for the rest of his life even if at times only working for four years for the country.
I'd say those politicians in the UK are well aware of that the queen and her family are maybe getting a pretty high salery... but what they are bringing into the countries pockets still is much much more.
If you want someone to represent your country a certain way, you need to do a calculation what the persons worth with all they are investing... the kings in Sweden and Norway do have a regular 60 hour week... sometimes even longer. They both get like maybe 3 weeks holidays a year. With the guarantee that it will be hard to spend them somewhere unseen and really free of any public attention. Plus they are willing to do their job usually till the day they'll die. There is no real retirement. You'll always have some representation to do. I'd guess it's pretty much the same in the UK. That's more than regular Joe is and most of us are usually willing to work in general.
The politicians in the UK are probably able to calculate if it's worth it to keep the monarchy.
And that's the explanation why the queen's still there and the monarchy will stay for a long while as long as they can convince their children that the job is all worth it.
That's the explanation why some monarchies were dying... not because the public didn't want them anymore. Those royal guys decided all that money isn't justifiying to give not less than their life for a stupid job.
That's why the Bavarian monarchy died for example... and also the german... the formerly royal families got those job offers after the wars. They didn't want them anymore. They got better jobs with some much better salery compared to what they have to do and give for it.

I'm far away from being a royalist. But let's see things not only one sided.
 
^I agree - monarchies might be expensive, but so are republics! Our (elected and non-elected) officials can often waste a truckload of money and they don't work half as hard as many royals. They also mean little to nothing in terms of representing the country.

I don't know if it's true, but I was once told that most of the money spent on the British monarchy is for the upkeep of property. That means without the monarchy that money will still have to be spent on the upkeep of the formerly royal property. Of course you could charge people to enter parks and turn palaces into hotels or something, but I don't think that is such a nice option.
 
great topic idea :)

Raylo said:
I like the monarchy and constitutional monarchies in general. I'm from a republic though and I don't think that we always completely understand the role a constitutional monarch plays in a kingdom. But in any case, I think a monarchy can add so much to a country in several ways and I always find it sad when I go to a country that has a strong and rich history of monarchy but has since abolished it. In some of those countries there's signs of royalty and royal splendour everywhere and yet there's no monarchy - I sometimes find it a bit haunting and sad.
Click to expand...


^ That's generally how I feel.

Every country spends money on things like landmarks or buildings of significance etc that usually cost that country a lot of $$$ that people consider a waste. Old buildings that are just boring old tourist traps cost money to maintain and occasionaly restore etc.

Even if the British decided to get rid of their monarchy, they would still have those buildings and grounds to upkeep because they create revenue for their country. The amount of people who fly to the UK to see Buckingham palace and other various places linked to the monarchy = big $$$.

From what I understood... the payrise request was for work that was needed to be done on the grounds and infrastructure of their property.

I don't know enough about the british monarchy to debate whether they are worthwhile keeping on or not and considering I'm not a british citizen I don't feel qualified to judge whether they fulfil the purpose of their role or not. Although I do get the sense that most citizens are just shitty that these people don't do a normal days work and are perceived to just be lucky to have beeen born into a jobless existence.... which if that's the case... and I had a choice between being a royal.. or being who I am... I'll take my spot thanks.... might not pay a lot, but at least I don't have high demands and expectations and I'm not pressured into following tradition.
 
Last edited:
I agree - monarchies might be expensive, but so are republics! Our (elected and non-elected) officials can often waste a truckload of money and they don't work half as hard as many royals. They also mean little to nothing in terms of representing the country.
Click to expand...
its the undemocraticness of it all thats the problem and the fact ppl bow towards these ppl like they are some sort of gods. living in wealth and grandure without earning it then u can walk 5 mins down the road and see ppl living in carboard boxes in the underground walkways. shameful in this day and age.the again thats the only thing the uk is good at.living in the past and pomp and ceremony.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
its the undemocraticness of it all thats the problem and the fact ppl bow towards these ppl like they are some sort of gods. living in wealth and grandure without earning it then u can walk 5 mins down the road and see ppl living in carboard boxes in the underground walkways. shameful in this day and age.the again thats the only thing the uk is good at.living in the past and pomp and ceremony.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but I still think you have a good deal lol. At least the senior royals do a lot of charity work and I definitely think their lives have serious drawbacks to balance out the luxury. I know I couldn't live that way - never having any privacy etc. You shouldn't be so hard on the UK lol (one of my faveroute places!), you could be doing a lot worse, but then again, I'm a sucker for the pomp and ceremony, the bowing and scraping:D
 
At least the senior royals do a lot of charity work
Click to expand...
but then its my view that they shouldnt be thanked for doing such things. they should have to after all they were born into a huge amount of wealth, never earned any of it on their own so maybe it eases their conscence (sp) by looking like they are doing something.how about just giving their money away that they never earned in the first place or all the land that they make money off. land that was stolen from others generations ago. and funny how these charity trips always happen around the middle of winter in the uk and they end up in nice warm countries "doing their bit" that happens to be nothing more than P.R trips that end up all over the media. as MJ said. you dn charity work you dont go around waving a flag saying look what im doing. theres many millions of ppl who do charity work and dont live in wealth and grandure and expect ppl to bow to them like they are some sort of god
 
I love the royal family and all the ceremony that goes with them. long may they reign over us.
they are far better than politicians.
 
Being from the USA, our country has never experienced a traditional monarchy since it's founding more than 225 years ago. We broke away from England under King George III and have not looked back. Therefore we do not have anything in the way of old heritage, traditional customs that have been around for ages, royal and noble families, aside from the native americans, but most of our society doesn't relate to that very well. I suppose that's one big reason why I like studying other countries so much, because there's so much history and culture that is unique and identifying. Part of those cultures is the fact that the majority of countries in the world have a history of some type of monarchy. I have no idea what it is like nor would be like to live under a monarchy. Both sides of my family have been in America since at least the early 1600's. On one side I am actually cousins to the historical royal family of England: through the Boleyns, the Stuarts, and the Tudors. Monarchies are intriguing to me, and it depends on the type of person a ruler is as to whether it can be a good or bad system. For example if Princess Diana had lived, I believe a lot of good would have happened once Charles becomes king, though I'm not exactly a great fan of him. It's Diana that has left her legacy and mark on history, doing the right things with the resources she was bestowed with. She would have made an awesome Queen.

But as far as absolute monarchy vs. constitutional monarchy, I can't say for sure. I think both prob. have their strengths, as well as their weaknesses. I don't really know the point of a monarchy in a society that has an elected political system, however. It's like they are just faces that do almost nothing but smile and wave. It's the prime minister or president or whatever a country wants to call it that really has the power and position to do things. On the other hand with absolute monarchy you are at the mercy of whoever is on the throne and pray to God that they are good people with sound judgement. :)
 
Mechi said:
well don't you either have politicians leading a country or monarchs?
Click to expand...

not really monarchs dont lead countries they are symbolic and nothing else in most countries except a few which have absoloute monarchs ie they run the country make the rules etc
 
elusive moonwalker said:
but then its my view that they shouldnt be thanked for doing such things. they should have to after all they were born into a huge amount of wealth, never earned any of it on their own so maybe it eases their conscence (sp) by looking like they are doing something.how about just giving their money away that they never earned in the first place or all the land that they make money off. land that was stolen from others generations ago. and funny how these charity trips always happen around the middle of winter in the uk and they end up in nice warm countries "doing their bit" that happens to be nothing more than P.R trips that end up all over the media. as MJ said. you dn charity work you dont go around waving a flag saying look what im doing. theres many millions of ppl who do charity work and dont live in wealth and grandure and expect ppl to bow to them like they are some sort of god
Click to expand...

Sorry for having been out of this conversation for awhile lol. My response to this would be that I agree people shouldn't have their asses kissed for doing charity work. But at the end of the day I think most of the royals' work goes unpublicized. I was shocked when I once read how many charity organizations they are actively involved with, not to mention the ones that they are merely affiliated with. I had no idea that they are on the boards of charities and attend meetings and give actual input. All you ever see in the media is the fanfare part. And while that can be seen as shameless self-promotion, it does also actually help the charities. Apparently the Welsh National Opera raised more money in the one night per year that Princess Diana attended a performance than they did throughout the whole of the rest of the year. They were in a panic when she decided to drop them from her schedule. That's quite an impact to have - the kind of impact that politicians (with very few exceptions) and even the vast majority of celebrities don't have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top