Bro, this “king” and “queen” bullshit is fucking hilarious. It needs to fucking go away. Why the fuck would anyone be ok with some dude who’s never held a job in his life to be his/her “king”? Snow white tale isn’t real. Fuck off with this shit, man.
Then you look at the USA where a large part of the population really wants there to be a King Donald the First.
Lmfao. That’s actually very fucking true. Fuck this dude
King D1 would like to confirm all 17 year old female subjects please.
Right? “Here’s a family of inbred, pedophile, do nothings. Worship them peasant, and give them your money, for they are better than you. Because reasons.”
It’s so stupid that we still do this in 2024. I’m a Canadian citizen for 20 years now, and when I took the oath I straight up refused to recite the pledge to the monarchy. The judge actually let it slide.
That’s actually awesome that you didn’t pledge allegiance to some dude who is not even in your continent.
To be fair, this specific royal family serves in the military and does not shy from front line duty. Although they kicked the last one out for marrying a divorced mixed race woman. So there’s that too…
So, racists? Lol
A long time ago his clan beat out some other clans so that makes him king.
I’m pretty sure anyone is welcome to challenge his assertion of authority at any time by the same means.
Not really - the current British royal house is german-descended. There are noble families in the UK with longer english/british pedigrees than the ~~Saxe-Coburg Gotha ~~ Windsor/Mountbatten family. But the current situation suits them better than rocking the boat.
Removed by mod
No no, they dont call them kings. They call them wealth creators and, despite worshipping them in much the same way, them ruling their offices in much the same way and literally just being a financial aristocracy, I’m told its a totally different thing.
Because it makes money and is entertaining.
Without the celebrity status and novelty there would be a lot less tourism in Britain. It’s not like people go there for the food or the weather.
If they got rid of the royal family, that wouldn’t mean they’d need to get rid of all the castles and other historically relevant places and architecture, too…
Do you know how much money paid to the “monarchy” goes to the upkeep, maintenance and renovation of the properties that attract tourism?
Have you seen the revenue those properties make, and how 88% go to the treasury ministry?
edit: downvotes because nobody wants to actually figure out anything about the situation. I’m not even british, i’m fucking American but even I know the “royal family” brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day. So much bullshit infests the news cycle from them, if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news - because the stuff in the news is what sells.
Similar properties in other countries also make a ton of money. Why do you think it’s the “royal family” that brings in the money? It’s not like tourists can even meet them. What exactly do you think is the draw for normal people? Outside of some lunatics, who gives a fuck?
Probably a decent chunk of it.
How much extra is paid to support the lavish lives of royalty? And how much is paid to make those properties liveable rather than as tourist attractions?
Plus empty buildings don’t need quite as much security as kings and queens and their families…
even I know the “royal family” brings in way more money than the architecture any fucking day
Based on what? France is literally right next door and it’s the biggest tourist destination in the entire world, bar none. Nobody is going to Versailles and complaining that it’s just not the same without the state waifu living there anymore.
Do you have any idea how much the royal family owns? If their possessions were transferred to the state and invested, the RoI would probably be higher than whatever they bring in through tourism.
We don’t need a royal family to attract tourism to the buildings. Tax money can still go to upkeep historical sites, the guards, and all the touristy stuff. More of the revenue goes back towards infrastructure.
if people didn’t give a shit then they wouldn’t put it in the news
Look up “propaganda” in the dictionary.
People are fucking ignorant and think they know how that shit works. You are 100% correct.
It’s just a ceremonial thing, they don’t have any actual power. Plus it makes money for the country. There’s not really any reason to get rid of them and King Charles is always pushing anti-climate change stuff so he’s actually using his influence to try and help.
Plus it makes money for the country.
I call bullshit. The Louvre makes more tourism money than Buckingham Palace even without some rich assholes living there.
Then congrats on not knowing how all of it works. Buckingham is just one castle that runs tours. They also sell tours of Windsor Castle, Frogmore House, the Royal Mews, Clarence House, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and the Queen’s Gallery. Their events (coronations, funerals, weddings) also bring in tourist dollars. Windsor Castle alone brings in $50M/year, while the Louvre by itself is $100M/year.
But that is ONLY the ticketing revenue they bring in. They also sell shitloads of trinkets, memorabilia, gifts, etc. People buy sets of collectible dishes! More than that, though, is the media money they generate. They are basically influencers. News agencies and tabloids sell TONS of adspace on websites and newspapers from info about the royals. Their Christmas specials bring in tons of TV viewers.
In the end, they only cost the UK taxpayer 1.29 pounds per year per person (89M pounds total per year) and have an estimated yearly input to the UK economy of close to 1B pounds.
You do realize that tickets to the castles, memorabilia etc. would sell without them, right? And there’s no shortage of celebrities. If they don’t exist, something else will take their place in those tabloids.
A) But they would sell far far fewer tickets and less memorabilia. I’ve been to really nice castles that are nowhere near as many visitors and have tiny gift areas. The most famous castle in Germany (Neushwanstein), also one of the most famous in the world, only makes about $6M/year while Windsor makes $45M/year on its own. A castle I went to just outside London was really beautiful and cool, and I could freely walk around it with almost no tourists and an entrance fee about half what Windsor was… because it wasn’t connected to anyone famous. It was just a castle. I went to the main palace in Vienna, and it was basically empty.
B) Fame isn’t a zero sum game, and some things aren’t so easily replaced. It’s like saying if Jordan hadn’t been in the NBA there would have been another player of his caliber. Or if Michael Jackson hadn’t been around in the 80s there would have been another King of Pop as big as him. To be clear: I’m not saying the people in the royal family are special like Michael or Michael, but the royal family as an entity is something the world doesn’t have any more. How many people know the royal family of Spain or Denmark or Saudi Arabia outside of the people in those countries? Now how many people know the name Queen Elizabeth? Not only that, but the people who buy tabloids fucking love reading about royalty. Yeah, there will always be famous people, but the things they are famous for aren’t easily replaced.
I’m no fan of the royal family. I think they are fucking disgusting and shouldn’t exist as an entity. But there isn’t another entity out there like them, so the UK has made the financial decision to give them a stipend in exchange for the income they provide.
How much money do I need to bring your country before I can be called royalty and collect taxes from each person?
The only reason it still exists is because the only people who can give away that power is the royal family at the moment.
They’re actually given full legal immunity to anything, meaning they’re allowed to commit crimes if they so choose (which we wouldn’t know anything about as there is no transparency concerning these types of things). There have also been cases of violent repression against unarmed dissidents who were protesting against the monarchy (mostly when the queen had died), with disproportionate punishments handed out.
Is this really necessary, having one family be pretty much above the law and having their lifestyle be funded via public funds? Sure, there’s an argument to be made that it drives the tourism, but it’s unknown how much does the royal family contribute to it, as there’s definitely tourists who would still visit the monuments and buy merch without the family.
We dont know how much power they have, it’s illegal to know:
| Due to secrecy laws, it is extremely hard to find documentary evidence of the queen’s exercise of influence. In the United Kingdom, government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.
- “relate to” is so broad and it means we have no idea what is going on.
| But The Guardian has managed to expose a chink in this armour of secrecy. In the UK’s National Archives, it discovered documents from 1973 showing the queen’s personal solicitor lobbied public servants to change a proposed law so that it would not allow companies, or the public, to learn of the queen’s shareholdings in Britain. The gambit succeeded, and the draft bill was changed to suit the queen’s wishes. Perhaps these documents escaped the secrecy embargo because they involved communications with a private solicitor, rather than palace officials
“I am your king.” “Well, I didn’t vote for you.” “You don’t vote for kings.” “Well, how’d you become king, then?”
[Angelic music plays… ]
King Charles: “The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that my ancestor, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.”
Peasant: “Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
SHUT! UP!
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
One of the single best lines in all of cinema IMO.
“I had more swords than the other guy”
Mummy gave me the crown and we have too much money for anyone to object.
Forgive the Reddit link, the artist has only posted it there that I can tell.
deleted by creator
For real, though…
I think everyone knows it’s ridiculous.
For some the monarchy is a living museum, they don’t have to like it, they just find it interesting.
The most expensive museum ever. Just what he’s wearing in that pic has a monetary value of more than the combined wealth of your extended family.
Imagine how much better the world would be if the wealth and land holdings (a sixth of the surface of the entire planet) belonged to the people in stead of the most privileged family in existence.
As far as what he’s wearing goes, it’s just a bunch of gold and jewels. Little that would actually help anyone do anything. We only consider it wealth at all because of the capitalist context around it.
That’s part of my point: the wealth and labor spent producing and procuring those ridiculous baubles could have been better spent improving the conditions of regular people, especially those that the system is actively stomping on.
Hell, the gold itself could have been put to myriad better uses than just adorning a spoiled idiot who believes in homeopathy and has a temper tantrum when someone gives him a pen that doesn’t work.
The royal family costs the UK tax payer 77p per year, most people aren’t outraged by that.
It can be argued that they attract a considerable amount of tourism, people that travel to the UK to see the Tower of London, the King’s guards, Buckingham palace and all the rest of it. There is also the “soft power”, people around the world are for some reason obsessed with the UK’s royal family and it does help with influence whether you’d argue that is for better or worse.
I understand that the obscene wealth they hold during a cost of living crisis is an image problem to say the least and I don’t defend that. Such obscene wealth is awful no matter who you are and according to the times rich list, there are at least 257 residents in the UK that are more wealthy than the Royals, some of them considerably so.
For the record, I’m not for or against the UK monarchy, I’m somewhere in-between and see validity in both sides of the argument.
Just as many people visit Paris as London. France is a republic. People go to see the buildings and stolen artifacts.
The royal family costs the UK tax payer 77p per year
If you believe that, I have a palace in Buckinghamshire to sell you 🙄
most people aren’t outraged by that.
Because it’s utter horse shit.
It can be argued that (repeats the same tired arguments that everyone’s heard a billion times before)
Yes, it can, but it shouldn’t. None of that justifies wasting billions of pounds on the royal family and letting them own most of the country tax free while enforcing austerity politics on an increasingly impoverished population with a deepening housing crisis.
It’s a grotesque waste of desperately needed resources and land.
For the record, I’m not for or against the UK monarchy
Yeah, I can tell by how you spent your first sentence making up an outrageous lie about how much of a financier drain on society they are, your second paragraph repeating all the usual pro- monarchy clichés, and the third disowning the second.
Thanks for wasting my time and that of anyone else reading it with your wishy-washy nonsense.
Ok, if you can find an unbiased source that says it costs the UK taxpayer more than 77p per person per year, I’ll read the rest of your comment.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-86-3m-in-key-figures
Removed by mod
You talk like someone who’s aptly named.
Anyway, here’s a shitload of data
So, a bit more than one pound, instead of a bit less. *shrug* Not sure the difference was worth your abusive rhetoric.
Fair play, mod. I have a personality disorder and some of my dark humour/coping came though. I feel for people like VH who, like myself, have enormous difficulty dealing with people.
While I get your point the royal bullshit would just be placed in a museum similar to the royal regalia of the HRE or Lombardy. But yeah theyd probably be better off being kept as exclusive museum pieces rather than being put on the head of some inbred dipshit every once in a while.
But then I will miss out when it’s my turn to be king!
Sure you will, Ralph
Yeah but what would people dream of?
\s
You have a man who’s spray painted himself bright orange… Badly running for the premiership of your country.
We elected Boris Johnson to PMship. We aren’t better.
Removed by mod
I’ve only ever seen the Queen in this regalia and I can’t not see it as crossdressing when Charles does it.
Lidia Thorpe is not wrong when Briitish colonialism fucked the world. The British should be held accountable for that. However, this arguement can be made to absolve the Australian government of their fuckery with indigenous people.
Sure, Australia didn’t become federate until the early 1900s. However, I would imagine sometime prior to that Australia was acting more or less as an independent country.
What do you mean by “The British should be held accountable”?
Who, exactly? And how, exactly?
The monarch, the government, the entire population?
Reparations? If you sell everything - crown estates, crown jewels, all the art, everything - are you going to deliver $7.28 to every single person in a former colony?
How about we look forwards, instead? There’s little to be gained in trying to make current-day nations pay reparations for things that their ancestors did.
There’s little to be gained in trying to make current-day nations pay reparations for things that their ancestors did.
“We will not blame [King George] for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.”.
-James ConnollyHow about we look forwards, instead?
How about we look at the present? Because colonialism isn’t over. People are still suffering from it right now. The global south is still actively being colonized and exploited right now.
You can’t drive a knife into someone’s ribs then say “what’s in the past is in the past, we need to look forward instead” when your hand is still holding the blade. How can you hope to start the process of healing if you haven’t even taken the knife out all the way?
Now, I don’t have all the answers for how that healing process is going to work for the world, but I’m pretty sure a billionaire dancing around in a golden hat and velvet robes with a title that says “God made my bloodline special so I can stab whoever I want” isn’t a part of it.
Interesting take. Let’s not hold anybody to account by that logic. So what if the car I drive is stolen, I didn’t steal it. So what if the lady that I paid to have sex with was coerced, I didn’t force her. So what if the wealth that I stole from others is used to persecute the rest of the world…
So in your two hypothetical situation, what benefit does punishing you provide to any of the victims?
Removed by mod
Better for whom exactly?
This is why we need a proper, fact based education about empire and the damage it caused the world, even if it gets dismissed as “woke” by ignorant flag shaggers.
Colonization is never good.
Sure that’s true for half of Africa /s
I don’t think any colonised people were uplifted by the process. To think that colonisation was a good process is to literally whitewash history
she was removed for speaking up against colonial criminals as an indigenous person. fucking boot lickers. probably literally too; wouldn’t be surprised.
Is anyone gonna talk about the article or just virtue signal about hating monarchy?
I hadn’t heard albo wanted to become a republic, that’s pretty interesting, but unlikely to materialise into anything because the Australia public almost certainly won’t vote for it.
This is par for the course of Lidia Thorpe, she’s been very hard to work with, even for other Aboriginal activists. She’s a contrarian that’s doesn’t seem to do much besides complain, just like the commenters on Lemmy.
Yeah, if we can’t even manage to enshrine a bloody advisory body to parliament with no powers into the constitution, then good luck getting a republic with the conservative media grip over this country.
I’m actually astonished how left-leaning we are in general, given the situation. But yeah, the Voice to Parliament referendum gives me very little hope in people voting to become a republic.
SUBJECTS WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT OR PROTEST AGAINST THE RULER… It was, is and will be the norm for monarchy.
This ultra privileged section of society do nothing really nothing and just use tax payers money to showcase their immense wealth.
Let that indigenous LADY SENATOR go berserk against the RULER OF THE COMMONWEALTH who is much more energised and privileged to focus on courting with his newly „announced wife“ rather than providing advice to the problems normal people.
AT LEAST LEND AN EAR TO THE VOICE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
…well he’s not…
Oh boy, wait til you learn about the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth isn’t the countries with the British Monarch as head of state.
But yeah, the British Monarch is the head of state in Australia. Annoyingly
I was in favour of mummifying HRH so that her preserved corpse could continue to be our figurehead leader. Honestly, as stupid as it sounds, I don’t think anyone can argue that it’s more stupid than the status quo.
deleted by creator
i guess they have their own gods from the dreamtime
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://apnews.com/article/australia-canberra-king-charles-visit-4ea87d39d17c4a9fe3cbfab3455fb8f7
