Are you into kings and queens?

[Tuomas]

No, I don't mean the sitcom.

I'm talking about monarchies around the world. I've been reading the news about the English queens' birthday and the lordships handed out like bread and the biggest news here, the Swedish wedding this weekend.

I've been quite a lot of John Milton and Thomas Hobbes from the time of the English civil war and it got me thinking. I'd peronally be really mad, if someone'd spend a lot of my money on their own overboard brithdays or birthday where you have to have 60 billiion elephants swimming across the Baltic sea just to make it look royal. Either way, all of this is just to keep up a status of "looking good" and wealthy in my opinion. The decisive function of a monarch as a sovereign in politics has long gone and like the president in Finland, they really have nothing but an artificial value in politics. But do you feel that a queen for example is an impportant part of your nation?

I can see that such a long lasting culture is hard to give up and probably not even necessary, but how does one find spending money into colourful peacocks and whatever costs just to show out, important? Of course, I do not persoanlly relate to any head of state because the governemtn is chosen every 4 years here by the commonwealth, not through heritacy, and it always keeps changing. But of course, a king has always been. To me it seems, these royal families are the most useless people in the country, living on the highest possible welfare

Do people in for example Sweden or England, or where ever they have kings feel that they're inportant and really worth spending all the money? As far as I know, the wedding of the princess and the tramp costs more than an ice hockey world cup event. To me it all sounds a bit medieval, you know, kings and queens

[NsMn]

As always, I have just a short opinion about that: In some countries (Thailand is a good example) the king definitely deserves some more rights and power, now that the "Democratic" politicians are all corrupt.

But when it comes to the European monarchies like the UK, Scandinavia or Spain, I'd say: No, I'm completely against it. Even though they are all constitutional, the aristocrats still have more power than the civillians. Eg., in Britain, the Queen can indirectly appoint special people to be in the House Of Lords by ennobling them, and again, these have more power than the parliament, from what I know. And you can still see that the UK is still way too imperalistic.

Another country, another situation: Spain. Here, monarchy is completely unnecessary. For the ones who may not know: Their current Kingdom was originally founded by the fascist leader Franco and became official after his death - before the Nationalist regime, the state was a Republic, which was just fine.

Besides, what worries me most is this: Almost NEVER the king is really Spanish or Scandinavian. And that is really contra-productive for a government.


...unless the queen is hot, of course.

[Vince Twelve]

I'm totally into queens.

[Chicky]

Amen brother.

[Stupot]

I'm more of a Manhattan man myself.

In answer to your question though.  I quite like the idea of monarchies.  For me, all the best British history revolves around the Kings and Queens of yesteryear... but that was before all the power was given to the Prime Minister and the monarchy became little more than a figurehead.

From a romantic point of view I think it's quite cool that we still have a Queen, and it's kind of cool to know I'll probably be around when William (who's my age) gets crowned King.   Personally I think we could do without a monarchy now, but I wouldn't say I'm against it as such...  In fairness the Queen does a lot of good work behind the scenes even if her role as ruler of England amounts to little more than customary signatures and the occasionaly festive speech.

[Victor6]

Personally, I feel that it's worth hanging onto our monarchies. Why? Because they're a living connection to our cultural history, and a symbol of our nations. They can also (as mentioned with Thailand) serve as balancing factor for politics.

Yes, they cost a lot.....but they also bring in a lot of cash too. Call 'em living tourist attractions if you want.

[Ali]

The most tedious and prevalent argument in the UK is that the monarchy make us more money than they cost us, through tourism.

By this logic, we ought to be charging American tourists £50 a go to have their photo taken with the queen, and £100 to slap one of the princes. Then we'd be getting our moneys worth.

[Radiant]

But do you feel that a queen for example is an impportant part of your nation?

Yes, I do. Symbols are important.

[Calin Leafshade]

Yes, I do. Symbols are important.

Allow me to rebut that carefully crafted argument: No they aren't.

I'm of the opinion that the monarchy is entirely unnecessary but frankly not really worth the effort of dismantling. It doesnt really cost us much/anything due to the tourism revenue and members of the royal family make good non-partisan envoys.

all in all a pretty equal-sum game.

[Igor Hardy]

If it isn't kings and queens, then it's the church, scientologists, or something similar. People just love giving away their money to see others prosper.

[Baron]

My queen doesn't even live in my country -talk about a rip-off!  But at least she doesn't meddle -truthfully, aside from on money, I never see her except in the tabloid magazines when I'm trying to pay for my groceries.  A local king would surely make a nuisance of himself, so I guess there are advantages to having a remote and distant sovereign.

[Chicky]

Every true Englishman knows the Royal Family are absolutely essential to our integrity as a nation. Comic relief is priceless.

[Jared]

For me, all the best British history revolves around the Kings and Queens of yesteryear... but that was before all the power was given to the Prime Minister and the monarchy became little more than a figurehead.

People seem interested in the history of the Royals because they were, much of the time, complete bastards. I mean, look at Richard the Lionheart - among the most revered monarchs. He taxed the country to buggery and back, proudly claiming that he would "sell London to fund [his] wars, if only [he] could find a buyer!" and wasn't even in the country for all but 6 months of his 10 year reign. Plus was most likely gay and unlike other such rulers under this suspicion never even bothered giving the country an heir, some historians suggesting he never even shared his bed with his wife (whereas it IS documented he shared his bed with the King of France...)

Of course, sometimes there IS the magical lightning-in-a-bottle such as Elizabeth I and.... well Victoria... I'm trying to think of a King of England I know of that wasn't a git, really flailing... well, I'll go with Alfred the Great for the moment (and HE wasn't even a legitimate successor, he made up a story that the Pope annointed him heir that nobody would be able to disprove) with gives the monarch's history that thin shining veneer of glory but...wow. They come after strings of indolent wastrels and callow sadsacks.

I saw the devil you elect is much better, because we know what absolute power does.

With that said I also agree with the earlier point that Thailand does benefit from its Royalty - if countries need stability then Royalty is a good way to keep it because the lines of succession are generally fairly clear cut. Of course, sometimes they're not and you get a Battle of Culloden or two but I guess them's the breaks...

Australian, btw. So I'm stuck with the English Royals as well...

[Matti]

I think it's an evidence of incapacity to overcome old disgusting traditions and systems that royal families still exist (in western democracies), legally and official. And that people want to be near members of royal families is rather sad too. What are they thinking - "Hey, these guys are so rich and famous, they must be better than me. So it's a privilege for me to stand aside them." Wtf? They deserve nothing of their wealth and fame.

Are we proud about times where kings ruled whole nations on their own? Is that the "symbol of our nations" or the "living connection to our cultural history"? I say we should delete the royal status everywhere and overcome yet another one of many bad traditions.

[NsMn]

By the way: In Europe, it was part of the culture to burn people.


BURN CHRIS JONES; HE MAKE COMPUTERS DO STUFF! BURN BABAR; HE'S A  MUSLIM! BURN MONKEY_04_05, HE'S A MONKEY!!!!