It doesn’t explain why you have so much venom. I see the royal family as British heritage. I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people. Certainly not enough to explain the hate.
So some guy came to England, killed another guy who claimed to rule it, and now we have to watch their family spend eternity in decadent luxury because “British Heritage”. pfft.
Tell you what. I’ll go perform some actions that make myself king, and then a few generations from now my family will be British heritage. Then we can all be happy.
They have influence, not governing power. Sure you could argue they don’t deserve the influence they have just for being in that position. The main point however is questioning the /hate/. I know you’re not the poster who I was replying to, but I didn’t want to distract the point of my post. Why should we hate the monarchy so much?
We shouldn’t hate the monarchy, necessarily. We should hate monarchy as a concept.
It’s archaic, it formalises and legitimises unbelievable levels of inequality and elitism, and it gives rise to at least the strong possibility (and in the UK’s case at least, the actuality) of a tiered legal system, with some laws simply not applying to some people because of their position.
It’s a repulsive idea, based on historical might and hereditary right, and with no regard for democracy or equality of all people.
The old man that this post is about literally does have governing power, not only in the UK but also in 14 other countries including Australia and Canada. A common argument made by monarchists is that the monarch’s actual influence is negligible, and their governing power should be ignored because it is only ceremonial.
As Wikipedia puts it:
Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch’s behalf. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Monaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a dire political emergency or on advice of government.
I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people.
Then what the hell is the point in the amount of tax money that we spend on them? If tourism is such a big money spinner for the country then getting rid of them and keeping the related buildings would still bring in money without having to pay for the decadent lives of these parasites.
sorry, but arent the crimes of their fathers the sole basis for our worshipping them, allowing tbem political power and sending the pricks millions upon millions of tax payer pounds?
you dont reckon its a little disingenuous to complain about people shitting on their heritage when said heritage is the entire argument for their existence
You’re not wrong. I take the view that our history, be it good or bad, is part of who we are as a people. However, I wouldn’t want Britain to abolish the monarchy without good reason, and something that occured in the here and now rather than the past.
There are some replies to this thread that have enlightened me on the power the monarchy holds, which I don’t agree they shoud have. I initially thought the monarchy was a symbolic relic, but it seems it’s not the case.
It doesn’t explain why you have so much venom. I see the royal family as British heritage. I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people. Certainly not enough to explain the hate.
You know what else is a British heritage? Famines in India.
Aristocracy is privilege without any kind of merit whatsoever. It costs the tax payer millions and undermines democracy.
So some guy came to England, killed another guy who claimed to rule it, and now we have to watch their family spend eternity in decadent luxury because “British Heritage”. pfft.
Tell you what. I’ll go perform some actions that make myself king, and then a few generations from now my family will be British heritage. Then we can all be happy.
Not to mention that British heritage belongs to a German dynasty.
I don’t know if it’s that you don’t know anything about the royal family, or that you don’t know anything about how power works, or both.
They have influence, not governing power. Sure you could argue they don’t deserve the influence they have just for being in that position. The main point however is questioning the /hate/. I know you’re not the poster who I was replying to, but I didn’t want to distract the point of my post. Why should we hate the monarchy so much?
We shouldn’t hate the monarchy, necessarily. We should hate monarchy as a concept.
It’s archaic, it formalises and legitimises unbelievable levels of inequality and elitism, and it gives rise to at least the strong possibility (and in the UK’s case at least, the actuality) of a tiered legal system, with some laws simply not applying to some people because of their position.
It’s a repulsive idea, based on historical might and hereditary right, and with no regard for democracy or equality of all people.
That makes sense. I agree with that. Thank you.
I felt somewhat disheartened that the response of a guy announcing he has cancer is filled with such toxicity.
The old man that this post is about literally does have governing power, not only in the UK but also in 14 other countries including Australia and Canada. A common argument made by monarchists is that the monarch’s actual influence is negligible, and their governing power should be ignored because it is only ceremonial.
As Wikipedia puts it:
But… there is a catch:
It turns out that there is also a less formal process (or a “parliamentary convention”; another part of the UK’s heritage is having an “unwritten constitution”, whatever that means) called King’s Consent whereby the monarch, in secret, is consulted before parliament is allowed to debate anything which might affect their personal interests. And it turns out, a lot of things might affect their personal interests, so, this procedure has been and continues to be used to review, shape, and in some cases veto, numerous laws before they are allowed to be debated by parliament. You can read more here.
🤡
They don’t even need that sort of power for the argument to hold weight but yes, they do hold exactly that sort of power and use it for things like ensuring that Buckingham Palace isn’t affected by racial equality in employment laws https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
Then they hide it from us, too
That is quite a damnig article. Thanks I understand your view on that now.
Then what the hell is the point in the amount of tax money that we spend on them? If tourism is such a big money spinner for the country then getting rid of them and keeping the related buildings would still bring in money without having to pay for the decadent lives of these parasites.
They are “British heritage” because they killed, conquered and stole from our ancestors.
So we blame the sons for the crimes of their fathers.
What do you mean by “blame”?
sorry, but arent the crimes of their fathers the sole basis for our worshipping them, allowing tbem political power and sending the pricks millions upon millions of tax payer pounds?
you dont reckon its a little disingenuous to complain about people shitting on their heritage when said heritage is the entire argument for their existence
You’re not wrong. I take the view that our history, be it good or bad, is part of who we are as a people. However, I wouldn’t want Britain to abolish the monarchy without good reason, and something that occured in the here and now rather than the past.
There are some replies to this thread that have enlightened me on the power the monarchy holds, which I don’t agree they shoud have. I initially thought the monarchy was a symbolic relic, but it seems it’s not the case.