Hacker News Reader

Comment by jopsen | Hacker News Reader

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.

From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right.

On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc..

My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy.

A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper.

A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution.

Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :)

In any case, if paying a bit of money and respect was the cost of a peaceful adoption of democracy it might have been worth it.

Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.

View on HN

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

Emphatic no from me on that one.

Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny.

On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside.

On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.

Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.

But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.

No, the prime minister is the head of government, while the monarch is the head of state, those are two different roles.

You could merge them, South Africa-style if you wanted, but it's pretty unusual. Most parliamentary systems separate the two.

I don't disagree that a unified head of state+government would be unusual, but most parliamentary systems were also heavily inspired by the Westminster System, so that might not be a great argument one way or another.

Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability.

You don't want one person having both.

Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.

If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?

Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.

I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch.

Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say.

Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

>Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament:

This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.

IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then.

In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.

> Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to?

Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person?

> In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability.

I don't think there's much evidence of that.

> You don't want one person having both

Why not?

> Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.

The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.

So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?

Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.

> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?

We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).

Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?

That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government.

Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats.

The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.

That comment was literally about coalitions ...

> Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?

Form a coalition that does or have new elections. You can even set a timeline after an election for a coalition to be in place or new elections are mandated by law.

Belgium does a great job of proving that that doesn't quite always work.

Belgium was the country that recovered fastest from the 2008 financial crash...

Yet we still pay a "crisisbijdrage" :P It's an additional tax on top of regular corporation tax.

EDIT: which seems to have been introduced in 1993 and never removed :-/

It's a great example of why cancel culture shouldn't be used to run a country.

There are a ton of counterexamples and things in real life are measured by ratios of good to bad, not by proving that one case is false, like in math.

> 51% (or 50% + 1).

Usually “smallest integer greater than 50%”, of which the other two are imperfect approximations.

> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?

In a parliamentary system, the legislative body selects a head of government using a negative process, i.e. they choose the first best alternative that won't lose a vote of no confidence. You don't need 51% approval from parliament, you need to not get 51% disproval.

And depending on country, there are rules for in which order the various players are asked and how much time is allowed to pass for horse-trading and coalition-making, but generally the order is that you first ask the incumbent if they want to continue governing, and thereafter each party leader in order of size in parliament if they have an alternative that they think can pass a vote.

Also, in countries where coalitions are the norm, the various parties have aligned into blocks during the election campaign so that you can be reasonably certain that a vote for party A implicitly is a vote for their block.

> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?

Why do you need to have someone make a choice? Have a set timeline for one of the other to secure the support of a Parliamentary majority or new elections are called by operation of law.

No it doesn't. You may have Barack Trump the friendly Clown as a costume and post different silent actors each week.

If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.

What does a week at Buckingham palace cost on AirBnB?

£350m

Still not enough to offset the cost of brexit.

I think corona hysteria may have overshadowed Brexits effects on the British economy.

A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.

I think you'll be surprised what a government can accomplish when it really tries.

Being able to make laws helps with that.

Laws still have to respect the rights of the people, no? I’m not well versed in UK law, but the US, the legislature can’t just make a law making criticism of the government illegal because it’s a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.

Mmmm. Tell that to all the lawmakers and Executives that made their careers by pulling off end runs around the 4th, 5th, and 2nd amendments.

The Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

Also see, from https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

> The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant.

The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies.

The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency.

> ”The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch”

Correct.

> “nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.”

Incorrect. Currently 25% of the Crown Estate’s profits are paid to the Monarch. This was raised from 15% in 2018, and is set to revert back to 15% in 2028.

Why was it raised, but only temporarily?

"The sovereign grant was increased in 2017, from its previous level of 15%, to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace which are likely to run until 2027."

And Buckingham is part of the Crown Estate, which is not the private property of the monarch.

No, Buckingham Palace and other “occupied” royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate.

”The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the reigning monarch in right of the Crown. Occupied royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate, but nor are they the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.”

Did some research; think I’ve figured it out. See whether this is correct.

Occupied palaces, like Buckingham Palace, are owned by the reigning monarch ‘in right of the Crown’ (like you pointed out).

Similarly, the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’.

“In right of The Crown” means it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne.

So, you are correct (and I was wrong) that Buckingham is not part of the Crown Estate.

Notwithstanding this technicality, would you agree that the overarching point remains that it isn’t as if “the money goes to the monarch for their personal enjoyment” (which is what I interpreted you implied), but towards Buckingham renovations, which is a property of The Crown[1] (i.e the state) and which in turn is embodied by the reigning monarch.

It sounds to me as if the monarch is like a custodian/shepherd of these assets for the benefit of the state (the crown).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown

This is the point that people who say "but what about tourism?" completely and spectacularly miss.

Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. Having no royal people in there makes zero difference to that.

We could have the tourism without the actual royals, 100% no problem there

That is because:

1. Versailles has a boatload of art in it and is massive.

2. Some rather dramatic things happened there.

Buckingham palace has plenty of art, but so does the V&A Museum.

And you can't re-create the historical drama and preserve stability.

Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actual royal palace. Despite the historical significance it was one of the least memorable places I’ve been to in France.

Yeah, for one, you can actually enter the palace and not stay outside. The numbers of visitors in versailles absolutely dwarfs british palaces. I'm talking 'more visitors[0] than the british top 10 combined[1]'. And the fee to enter is not cheap. 20€.

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/991925/visitors-palace-o...

[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-...

I think you've just proved the comment you are replying to correct though. You were still interested enough to visit knowing that it exists solely for tourism in advance, and presumably only came to your conclusion afterwards.

These are not the sorts of places that people typically visit on overseas holidays more than once. So once the ticket has been bought, whether or not it is "an actual royal palace" is irrelevant.

Of course people like to feel the glamour of being close to the mystique of living wealth, but once an attraction is firmly on the circuit it hardly matters. See Tower of London, Blenheim Palace, Edinburgh Castle, Hampton Court Palace, etc.

According to Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, Buckingham Palace would be around the 70th most visited attraction in the country, hardly a sign that you need a living monarchy to sustain tourism - https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423

I did not write this as a defense of keeping the monarchy around just for the curiosity value, or from the raking-in-cash angle, just highlighting that the experience is quite different for visitors.

> Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny.

Only because of Hollywood accounting.

Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government does. If the Queen were to disappear tomorrow, tourists would still come to England to see Buckingham Palace.

The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other places kings and queens have lived)

Counterargument: all those grandiose empty buildings. People still come to see our Place of the Parliament in Bucharest and ain't nobody bringing back Ceaușescu :-))

The question isn’t whether people would visit, but rather do they visit more because of the queen’s existence. That is, would be worth a billion rather than billions

That's probably impossible to quantify. The example next door, Versailles, kind of says you don't need a living monarch.

>That's probably impossible to quantify

Sure, but that's the metric you need to go by if you want to evaluate the tourism value of a "living" monarchy.

That tourists would continue to exist with or without the queen doesn't really tell us anything useful. It's a question of how many.

Sure, this is why nobody is visiting the Versailles or the Winter Palace.

The late author JG Ballard once suggested that the monarchy should be abolished, but that the British government should work with Disney to have lifelike robotic replicas made. Cheaper in the long run, and Disney World is quite popular after all.

Stripping the Monarchy of their lands goes quite a bit further than just abolishing the monarchy. Removing the right to rule a county is one thing. Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.

>Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.

The concept of personal property can perfectly accommodate of a limit in how much a individual person can personally own, especially in regard to the distribution of wealth in the whole population.

Do you let a thief keep the stuff they stole?

Historically, it seems to depend on how long ago they stole it.

Logically too, when the crime victims may have died centuries or even millennia ago.

> Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings

An Act of Parliament could just ascertain that the Windsors exempting each other from Inheritance tax was unlawful, and ask the new Republican Revenue & Tax office to assess 40% IHT on every historical generational transfer of assets.

Just redressing the historical injustices that the Windsors benefitted from would strangely make them much less rich.

I expect to be downvoted for this but I think there is an appeal in an institution that dogmaticaly upholds a "higher" ideal of human behavior. They try to provide us with an example of how a hypothetical family with essentially unlimited resources that is born into this world with a social duty should theoretically behave. They also show us constant examples that human emotions are a factor regardless of your socio-economic situation. This provides the layman with an answer to the question "what would I do if I won the lottery and was instantly vaulted into the highest social circle?" Would you use your influence for the good of the people while maintaining a scandalous affair? Would you fall into the same emotional traps as the royals?

I think it's an interesting social experiment that may be worth the cost it requires to maintain.

And then there's Prince Andrew.

What you describe is noblis oblige. It's a long standing cultural force ofarguable efficacy peculiar in particular to France/Britain.

Elsewhere, there are alternative viewpoints. The funny thing is that your proposed institution assumes the layman is the one who needs to be taught or reminded more often than not.

Thanks for letting me know what the proper term is. I think it's very interesting.

It's total bullshit. France got rid of their monarchy a long time ago and it's not like their tourist industry suffers.

Tourism in France works without any royal family to feed.

It is useful to have a hereditary figurehead to open flower shows and the like. It keeps the elected politicians from forming a personality cult, and gives them more time to govern. Pardoning turkeys probably isn't the highest and best use of the us President's time

> It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism.

Ok, but how is that related to the political power of the monarchy?

I don't think tourists even know what powers the Queen actually holds.

> It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism.

It is however seldomly proven. Should that not be a requirement, like it is for the rest of us?

According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw, the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound, and an additional 7000M pound from tourism

The way I read the GP's comment was that the meat of the argument wasn't the 'cute' part, it was the 'avoid a violent revolution' part. Wars are usually more expensive than peace.

We don't need a violent revolution, the people who place themselves above all other people and claim ownership of our lands and claim control of us as people could choose to denounce those positions and powers of their own will. No one is forcing them to claim sovereignty over other people, nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation.

Why would that result in the positions/powers being abolished, rather that succession kicking in?

Monarchy isn't a hot potato, that the current power-holder has to directly pass on lest it get "dropped on the floor" and cease to exist. Monarch is a belief of the people that a position of power exists and is "open" to be taken by a person with a claim on "right to rule." It's a thing you can convince people you deserve, at which point they put the crown on your head rather than shooting at you for wearing it. Succession gives a peaceful path for that transfer of power, but succession isn't the default; a power vacuum being grabbed at by random nobles—usually violently!—is.

If the current monarch stepped down, someone else without the same scruples would just step up. You'd have to, in effect, get every even-barely-theoretically-"righteous" noble to all agree to denounce the power, for the power to truly go away.

I have a bit of a hard time understanding this hobby, but people have traced multiple lines of succession to the same throne out for centuries, even in cases where the throne no longer exists. In many cases pretenders identified by this activity have active supporters even when they don't promote or assert their own claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rival_successions

Like there can be some guy living in another country who says "um, that monarchy no longer even exists" or "um, my ancestors lost that war a long time ago and I don't plan to reignite it", but still has some kind of association of enthusiasts who claim to actively want him on the throne. One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria who insists that he doesn't actually think of himself as the King of England -- his relative who last actually exercised that position was deposed back in 1688 -- but that doesn't stop other people from thinking of him that way. :-)

Wikipedia has several dozen people listed in the official present-day line of succession to the British throne and notes that a genealogist has claimed to identify over 1,000 people in that line.

It's possible to imagine a France-like republican future for Britain in which people's elaborately detailed and extensively researched pretense claims are not very interesting news for the overwhelming majority of the population, but it probably wouldn't be something that would happen overnight in response to a couple of abdications when a huge number of British people and a substantial number of people with claims to the throne are actively enthusiastic about the monarchy.

> nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation

In theory, it'd then be shared as belonging to the nation. In practice, you'd get the political class lining their pockets in the short term, and leaving us worse off in the long term.

Between letting successive populist governments have free reign over what happens to certain wealth, institutions and freeholdings and spunking it on policies during their 4 or 8 years in charge, and letting a somewhat stable (if sometimes self-serving) hereditary monarchy retain stewardship over the course of centuries - I'm inclined toward the latter.

Snapped my neck nodding too hard

"Cute".

Defending state supported inherited power, which has already shown to be corrupted and have abused that power, by saying it's "cute" is like saying pirates murdering and stealing are romantisised to being cute.

Don't confuse watching and enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean with thinking it's a good idea to murder and steal on merchant ships.

Russian oligarchs and mafioso also have their charm, but don't confuse The Godfather part II with a good idea.

That's a very fair argument :)

And maybe one day it will be time to do away with it.. but it does have a cuteness factor to it.

And politicians are unlikely to want to burn political capital doing away with a popular cultural institution.

So as long as they behave, remain popular, I doubt the monarchy will go away.

As mentioned elsewhere, they have actually not behaved.

And we've not even mentioned yet Prince Andrew's connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and how he's being allowed to get away with it because of his family.

Here in Spain the royal family is also paid in a similar way as Denmark and Sweden. However, they are corrupt and make deals with SA and other nations. They go on elephant hunts and are above the law as the Spanish secret service / police will try to defend them as much as possible. When something actually does come to light, they are allowed to leave the country without limit and live in SA with their millions of tax free money.

I don't see it as cute, more as a cancer. Sometimes they are benign but you still want to get rid of it in-case it actually ends up killing you.

It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs).

But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.

Hunting elephants is legal and can help protection for the species. The real problem is in the context. Is going to an african tax heaven with some questionable people, suffering the second strange accident to the royal family in a short time, and justify the travel later claiming that he wanted to shoot an elephant.

EU project is only partially compatible with monarchy, you either have the power or don't and monarchs can only slowly lose more and more power to bankers with time. Thus, the current anti monarchy trend in many countries of Europe would be expectable. British probably see it coming and jumped of the train.

Not trying to put you down. I see the thinking behind your rationale, it is also somewhat detached from human emotional and political reality.

Being exposed to the atrocities of /most/ (im no expert) modern day monarchs and being an arab in the middle east, i find it REALLY hard to call what they do cute, or something math and money could fix. These problems, even dänmarks, evolved through strife, injustice and corruption.

Monarchies are necessary as-long as the region needs them .. i see politics more like an evolutionary process where monarchy is part of a nations dev stages.

I actually wish you were right.

In Denmark we have a constitutional monarchy... And while the constitution mentions the "King" many places.

We now have a Queen, and the role of the monarchy is entirely ceremonial.

Back in 1849 the Danish king signed the constitution, making the role of the king ceremonial, and giving us democracy.

Sure, this was in the aftermath of the French revolution. And hadn't the Danish king signed away his power we would likely have had a revolution.

Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad?

In Britain they don't have a constitution the same way. But I see many events throughout british history where the crown gradually signed away power.

> Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad?

Not saying its bad, just saying they wont do it. Theyre already rich beyond imagining- sadism and abuse are rampant, and the public doesnt seem to care.

Like seriously, how much cash will it take to convince the saudis to go ceremonial? Meanwhile another gay person is hung and a dissident is assassinated. That all said .. seems to be what the region “wants” - displeasure isnt high enough yet for regular folk to demand change.

In arabic there is a saying “the people earn the ruler they deserve”.

Beyond the short term moral qualm .. its just a step in the development of these countries - it could - and i was - worse. Better wiser days will come.

It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business.

But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than radical change.

And parliaments aren't? It's not actually clear to me which is better or worse over the long term.

Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly. I postulate that striping the royals of wealth will make no one here materially better off.

There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.

If you think the House of Commons was actually common men like you or I you'd be sorely mistaken, it was Knights and landed people (and i don't think very much has changed there). Make no bones about the UK parlimentary body, it is not of the "people" if that's what you are into.

Oh, no. I just wanted to share some nuance on what can stand behind a "measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property."

And it’s not like "civilization" was something one might really believe to stand on fairness, reciprocity and mutual care. That kind of things can survive in civilizations, and probably civilizations can’t survive themselves without leaving some room for these feelings.

> Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly.

This idea that criticism of wealth must be just down to envy is really quite a tired stereotype.

It makes even less sense when there's a hereditary class of people whose wealth and power is constitutionally guaranteed and, as we've discovered, who use corrupt means to maintain this by intervening in the lawmaking process to neutralise threats to their income.

It's not envy to realise that there must be a better system than this.

I've noticed that in the last five years or so there's been a trend to automatically dismiss any criticism or argument with "you're just jealous" rather than addressing it's merits. Any wealthy person is automatically immune from any sort of criticism - because if you criticize them it's only because you're jealous.

It's an ad hominem attack, nonsensical, tired, and, as someone who has experienced a lot of wealth envy in the past, always strike me as so incredibly insincere.

I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red hats, see Buckingham palace and then buy a mug with a photo of the queen on it. People crowd the streets to see if the silly old smiley rich lady will wave at you from her golden carriage. People listen to the queens speech not because they look at her as a tyrannical dictator, but usually because it gives some of the population the warm fuzzies.

I'm not saying that's worth more than a fully functioning democracy, or that they couldn't monetise themselves, but I think this is what OP is referring to. Something can be both 'cute' and an ugly business.

We're talking about a country where they are forced to pretend that someone can be born with an ability to rule. Hereditary monarchies a sick joke.

If people want to go and look at the English and think that it is cute they can. But that shouldn't influence the local decision making.

Nobody is forced to pretend anything. The monarch lost the ability to "rule" centuries ago. People can and do routinely call for abolition of the remnants of the monarchy with no ill effects, in fact, the head of Labour (the official opposition) is on film saying he used to be an abolitionist and by implication probably still is.

If the Queen had ever alienated the population the UK would have become a republic within a few years. Nobody actually thinks she rules anything which is why this article in the Guardian is news, and why it takes pains to point out how obscure this apparent veto actually is - apparently so obscure that even Parliamentarians themselves believe it's not used for anything!

The citizenship affirmation for British citizenship [0] is:

I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British Citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law

After which the citizen is issued a passport by Her Majesty’s Passport Office.

If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizensh...

> If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.

Trump is not equivalent to the Queen in role. The Queen is supposed to be a figured head only, a bit like the American flag. That's why this news is controversial because it's an abuse of position.

Real power in the UK rests solely in the House of Commons.

The last monarch that forgot that publicly had their head cut off in 1649.

That fact is celebrated every opening of Parliament when they slam the door in the face of the Queen's representative Black Rod, exactly so that she remembers.

You might not like the unwritten rules that govern the UK but they've worked pretty well so far and have been malleable enough to be reformed whenever there's been a problem.

The problem that comes into play with over-malleability is that you can end up weaseling your way into anything with enough time. Hard, explicit limits have their place, even if you do need to rein in the linguistic drift from time to time.

In America you swear your allegiance to a piece of fabric, and to support 'one nation under god' despite the fact that America is supposed to be secular...

Reality: These things are actually more based in culture and tradition than law.

Technically, it's to the thing for which the flag is a symbolic representation. One Nation, under God is arguably not an invocation of Christendom, but of deism, or the next biggest fish.

Spot on on the being based more on culture and tradition than law though.

The main thing standing in the way of republicanism in the UK is the simple fact the main alternative is an elected career politician.

And while nobody believes in that divine right nonsense any more, 99% of people who see the royals as corrupt and incompetent don't have anything better to say about our career politicians.

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off.

If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view.

Also cute!

Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy.

I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe.

What a silly comparison.

It's a difference in degree, not kind.

Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it.

Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler.

But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute".

Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.

It’s a difference in structure and power balance.

The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.

It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.

> The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.

Well that's a straw man.

> It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute

It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship.

What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians).

But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution.

If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown money for generations to come, and giving the crown a ceremonial role. The might be worth it, even if the current King is a murderous lunatic.

(Future kings will learn that the monarchy needs to be popular, or people will vote it out of existence)

Sweden and Britain both have abuses of power. The Swedish king has used his immunity from prosecution to commit crimes. Sure, not murder, but he's done "fuck you, I can't be prosecuted for reckless driving. Luckily I didn't kill anyone, but no thanks to me".

Other parts of the royal family have claimed immunity when committing crimes (traffic violations), even though they don't actually have it.

So the king and his family have been abusing their power. It's a slap in the face of the whole country.

Look elsewhere in this thread for abuses of power from the British royal family. Also, you know, Prince Andrew…

Immunity from prosecution is hardly "some indirect ceremonial power", especially when it's has ACTUALLY been used to commit crimes and getting away with it.

False dichotomy. You don't have to sign up for a contract that give them even ceremonial powers forever or behead them in grotesque violence.

It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

> It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

Sure, it might be possible to get a better deal. Or it might not, is it worth the risk?

Giving a ceremonial role is a pretty solid carrot. And compared to violent revolution it's dirt cheap to offer :)

I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince the Danish king to sign the Danish constitution in 1849. It's not a given that it could have happened peacefully.

In the end, it might not last forever anyways. It'll last so long as the monarchy remains popular, because at the end of the day the votes can change the constitution.

It might be interesting to some that there is some possibility that QE2 isn't the rightful monarch anyhow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th...

Possession is 9/10th of the law...

Every single now living monarch sits on their throne because an ancestor of theirs took it from someone else. In this case, might makes right.

Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted. His adoptive father's father was elected king (after Russian pressure).

Edit: The election happened as the king before him had no heirs.

> Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted.

Well, Karl XIV became king because he was elected by parliament, and then Karl XIII formally adopted him to make him and his family royal, not the other way around.

Either way, his son and grandson both married women that were descendants of Gustav Vasa in an attempt to bolster their claims, and that guy definitely took the throne by force.

So yes, you're right in that not every current reigning monarch has their position due to conquest, but most of them. And then that doesn't really matter, because the point I was making is that "rightful" is actually bullshit, it's 100% made up. It's political theater created to make it harder for presumptive conquerors to keep a throne, even if they have the might necessary to take it.

Seems like the right step then, might be to stage an insurrection, depose the queen, and take the throne, eh?

I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.

Ireland didn't get rid of the monarchy violently, it happened as a result of the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949.

Historically, Ireland and France were England's sworn, mortal enemies (Scotland for a while too, but that's faded). Regardless of current forms of government, they have the best candidates to take the British throne by force.

A French or Irish monarch might also help bring UK back into the EU :)

After giving it some thought, I think I have the right system. After the invasion, the UK monarchy is no longer hereditary. Instead, the French and Irish parliaments, in a joint session, elect the British monarchs.

Everyone's happy. Ireland and France have their democracies. England has its monarchy.

We can even draft a constitution with bounds on who can become monarchs. For example, they might need to be citizens of former British colonies. That might help keep the former colonies happy. Keep in mind both Ireland and most of France were, at one point, colonized by Britain (for France: See Hundred Years War, The Black Prince, and Joan d'Arc).

> I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.

They've already had at it. The French in 1066 and the Irish have invaded Wales and Scotland. So have the Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians for that matter, it's time to give someone else a run.

Or, as CGP Grey puts it "bigger army diplomacy"

Also, Michael Hastings isn't a descendant of Sophia of Hanover, which means his presumed claim would be invalidated by law anyway.

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

You might probably buy far more and far better distributed amount of cuteness without a royal family.

> A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper.

Nothing is without cost and risk. Keeping a royal family includes a cost and it rise the risk inherent with any concentrated political/wealth power. It is not absolutely safer on all regard to go for a different kind of government of course, it’s a different trade-off.

>A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution.

First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. The question is, if the people decide by means of a referendum to get rid of privileges, will the privileged few accept without trying to use violence to maintain their position?

Actually in France, they are several pretender to the throne[1]. It’s just that virtually nobody care.

>Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :)

Maths on what? Societies are complex systems with many parameters whose evolution is subject to the butterfly effect. You can throw numbers in-between to decorate any thesis you would like to defend, it doesn’t give it any meaningful scientific credibility.

> Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.

You say that like there was some kind of strictly internal consensus in the people of Syria to go for what happened rather than paying Assad. That sounds like an absurdly simplistic exposition of reality.

[1] https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/07/08/qui-serait-l-...

> First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise.

How do you replace the people in power peacefully, if they don't want to go?

It generally works out best if you offer them a carrot.

My point was merely that if it avoids violent revolution, the size of the carrot your offering might not matter so much :)

Last time a Danish monarch used any kind of political power it was close to end in a revolution with a general strike.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis

https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/danish-workers-str...

Bribing the monarch into being a figurehead is no guarantee either.

For instance, the monarchy didn't stop the rise of Mussolini or Franco.

Monarchies tend to want to continue the family business. I’d expect them to learn from the tragedies of the 20th century. As a result of the fascist movements, the Italian monarchy lost the crown and the Spanish lost it but only recovered it because of Franco’s whim. If I were a king, I’d use whatever reserve powers I had to oppose that kind of future for my dynasty.

In that article, from an 80 old day comment of mine, you did not understand my comment. You told me to read the article. You don't understand what I mean by justification. There is a difference between prescription and description. That article was descriptive, not prescriptive. You cannot justify universals if you believe only particulars exist. You can only justify universals if you are willing to accept a metaphysical reality and provide a grounding for the metaphysical. Not everything is proven in the same way. The scientific method is good for studying particulars, but it cannot prove a universal. For example, science assumes the laws of logic in its process, which it cannot prove or provide a justification for. Also the scientific method cannot justify the scientific method. You on the other hand will probably say "because it works." Something working is a value-judgement, and that is not independent of ethics. It also assumes induction and regularity in nature, but you obviously haven't heard about the problem of induction. Science cannot provide a justification for induction. Science will also claim things like we know things from observation or what is in the sense data. Did we observe that or sense that in our sense data? I would say not everything is proven the same way. You can use science for some stuff, but not everything.

Nope, it's no guarantee.

But it might it improve the odds?

Starting with a violent revolution tends to put violent people in charge of your democracy.

I suppose it worked reasonably for the Americans.

You cannot divorce Syria's situation from regional geopolitics. Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. Ultimately most of the problems stem from the hard realpolitik fact that the Syrian state have little military power to wield against significant adversaries. Their newfound alliance with Russia may be useful against rebels and terrorists and negating the meddling of the French and US, but it gets problematic when it comes to defending against Russian interests like Turkey and Israel. Syria is being carved up right now and no amount of bribing would help. Take a look at Kashmir if you want a better example of how to properly put down a protest.

> Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy.

True,

I don't think anyone was convinced Assad would step down if given more time or money.

Just saying, that in that calculus offering a ceremonial role is still a cheap bargain -- assuming you can get the people in power to take the offer -- that's not a given.

> My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy.

The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy.

> The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy.

True, now we're just paying interest on a purchase made generations ago.

Is that so bad? I assume it'll go away if the monarchy becomes unpopular.

> Is that so bad?

Is funneling tons of taxpayer money to some useless family of millionaires bad?

Yes, I think so. It's a moral failure and should just stop.

Worth remembering that we in the UK have already had a French style revolution with the monarch being decapitated in 1649.

It was considered a "bad move" and his son was restored to the role of head of state about 12 years later to correct it. :P

The idea of a powerless head of state has always appealed to me. I can't think of anything worse than someone like Johnson assuming that role.

-Living in Norway, whose monarchy is basically reduced to being on hand for when we need someone to officially open a new bridge to nowhere or provide apolitical statements in time of need, I am a pragmatic monarchist.

In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had.

Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around.

Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners.

Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course).

The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

Preferential hiring if they want a job as a reenactor or tour guide.

erm, the crown pays you, the currency was even named the crown?!?

What? We can castrate the royals, then keep them ceremonially.

The cutesiness of the Royal family is pragmatic as well. She can take some of the State Dinners that would otherwise go to the PM.

It seems silly but the US has to have the President go to everything and time is money to the President.

After watching The Crown (it's fiction I know), being royal seems to me to be incredibly tedious, boring and downright limiting. Sure you can jet off to a nice country, but you are very limited in what you can do, where you can go and who you can talk to. Mess up just once and the tabloid media will be all over you.

Honestly would much rather be poor and free than be "royal".

I do think they serve a purpose, and tradition is important to many people (I know the progressive-types want to pull all that down).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com