Tbh, coming from a constitutional monarchy myself, where the king and queen are a moral backbone, born and bread diplomats, using their funds to salvage, maintain and protect items of cultural heritage like buildings, furniture, art, etc, giving people hope everytime they speak…
… I’m glad we’re not just stuck with politicians. Like OMG! Americans whining about monarchies when their oligarchy reminds of the aristocracy in all the wrong ways becomes a facepalm moment.
Have there been bad monarch’s? Yes. Have there been bad politicians? Yes. Have both partaken in both classic and modern colonisation? You betcha. But sometimes, just sometimes, you want someone born dedicated to your country - and despite how many politicians rub sensually up against the concept of patriotism, you notice real quick who’s just wearing the emperor’s clothes - and in my case it ain’t the king nor queen.
I’m Finnish so we’re surrounded by constitutional monarchies, and honestly aristocracies are just not something I’d expect from a modern nation. The idea that only a person with the correct heritage is fit for a national leadership position is frankly nuts, and I don’t think the only option to that is the dumpster fire that is US politics
There’s something to be said from having the head of state that represents you on the world stage be decoupled from politics and trained for their role from birth rather then bringing their own sides bias to bear though. We had to endure Boris as a PM, but at least he was never our head of state like Trump was.
Most people outside the UK didn’t see Liz as the head of state though. She was a figurehead not someone with real power. If you wanted to do business with the UK you didn’t talk to her, you talked to Boris.
Most of the time I heard stuff about the royal family it was gossip in tabloids like TMZ. And let’s be real, they didn’t do the best job of representing the UK either in the last few years re: Megan Markle and Prince Pedo.
I’ve never heard a practical justification for spending billions on a monarchy. Seize their land since it supposedly makes so much money in tourism and make them work for a living.
Perhaps it depends on the particular way the constitutional monarchy is constructed - I’m open to the idea it might be more workable or worthwhile in some forms.
I can’t say I’m impressed by the British monarchy, however. They hide most of their behavior, they hide how they use their finances, and what behavior of theirs is public is hardly what I’d want for a moral backbone of a country - even the last queen oversaw, for example, the actions of British soldiers in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising in the 50’s/60’s. It’s hard to tell for certain how involved she was or how much she knew about the concentration camps, etc, but she was at the top, and she never to my knowledge apologized for it or condemned it.
This and other colonial atrocities also means immigrant British citizens and citizens descended from immigrant families may have differing feelings about the queen. She represents a very narrow idea of Britishness, and I worry that the way she is put on a pedastal may only add fuel to the fire of anti-immigrant sentiment among people who feel there is only one true way to be British.
The whole thing feels like giving the Kardashians poltical power and an automatic pass for almost anything they do, to me. Celebrities are fun to gossip about, and sometimes they’re fun to fanboy/girl over, but idk that they need official power. If you took everything but the title from the British monarchs, I think people would still talk about them and care about them and probably still hand them things on a silver platter.
It also feels a bit like a British version of the problem the U.S. also has with hyping up nationalistic spirit in such a way as to have people believe their nation and their countrymen are automatically good and glorious, without first having to earn it. It makes for a cultural disconnect between action and valor - like you don’t have to do good things to be good, you don’t have to give a shred of thought to criticism, you just are fundamentally good even if you do things you’d criticize others for.
In the U.S. this takes the form of rampant historical revisionism and lionizing the founding fathers. I don’t know if the figureheads being dead makes it better or worse, though. At least a living figurehead is more obviously just a human person and will occasionally fuck up in public enough to be obvious around the propaganda, whereas the founding fathers genereally have their loves sanitized and idealized in history classes. But on the other hand the living symbol still has power, even if it’s mostly “soft” power and $$$$ power.
Not really if you come from anywhere outside the Americas. Half of Europe and Asia still have kings/emperor’s and a big chunk of countries exist under other nations royals like the British Commonwealth.
I’m Finnish, and as I noted in another comment here we’re surrounded by constitutional monarchies and I don’t find “well everyone does it” a very compelling argument for aristocracy
Yeah I’m from the Netherlands and I also find it strange. It’s like this odd thing that you read about in history books and yet it exists today. The king sometimes gives people knighthood. They kneel before him and he stands there with a sword and says some words, and then boom you are a knight! It’s wild and something out of fantasy stories.
I always forget that the Netherlands is a monarchy. It’s such a weird thing to see in the modern age
Tbh, coming from a constitutional monarchy myself, where the king and queen are a moral backbone, born and bread diplomats, using their funds to salvage, maintain and protect items of cultural heritage like buildings, furniture, art, etc, giving people hope everytime they speak…
… I’m glad we’re not just stuck with politicians. Like OMG! Americans whining about monarchies when their oligarchy reminds of the aristocracy in all the wrong ways becomes a facepalm moment.
Have there been bad monarch’s? Yes. Have there been bad politicians? Yes. Have both partaken in both classic and modern colonisation? You betcha. But sometimes, just sometimes, you want someone born dedicated to your country - and despite how many politicians rub sensually up against the concept of patriotism, you notice real quick who’s just wearing the emperor’s clothes - and in my case it ain’t the king nor queen.
I’m Finnish so we’re surrounded by constitutional monarchies, and honestly aristocracies are just not something I’d expect from a modern nation. The idea that only a person with the correct heritage is fit for a national leadership position is frankly nuts, and I don’t think the only option to that is the dumpster fire that is US politics
There’s something to be said from having the head of state that represents you on the world stage be decoupled from politics and trained for their role from birth rather then bringing their own sides bias to bear though. We had to endure Boris as a PM, but at least he was never our head of state like Trump was.
Most people outside the UK didn’t see Liz as the head of state though. She was a figurehead not someone with real power. If you wanted to do business with the UK you didn’t talk to her, you talked to Boris.
Most of the time I heard stuff about the royal family it was gossip in tabloids like TMZ. And let’s be real, they didn’t do the best job of representing the UK either in the last few years re: Megan Markle and Prince Pedo.
I’ve never heard a practical justification for spending billions on a monarchy. Seize their land since it supposedly makes so much money in tourism and make them work for a living.
You’re surrounded by one now… would you like some fisk? Some oil? Some fisk oil?
Perhaps it depends on the particular way the constitutional monarchy is constructed - I’m open to the idea it might be more workable or worthwhile in some forms.
I can’t say I’m impressed by the British monarchy, however. They hide most of their behavior, they hide how they use their finances, and what behavior of theirs is public is hardly what I’d want for a moral backbone of a country - even the last queen oversaw, for example, the actions of British soldiers in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising in the 50’s/60’s. It’s hard to tell for certain how involved she was or how much she knew about the concentration camps, etc, but she was at the top, and she never to my knowledge apologized for it or condemned it.
This and other colonial atrocities also means immigrant British citizens and citizens descended from immigrant families may have differing feelings about the queen. She represents a very narrow idea of Britishness, and I worry that the way she is put on a pedastal may only add fuel to the fire of anti-immigrant sentiment among people who feel there is only one true way to be British.
The whole thing feels like giving the Kardashians poltical power and an automatic pass for almost anything they do, to me. Celebrities are fun to gossip about, and sometimes they’re fun to fanboy/girl over, but idk that they need official power. If you took everything but the title from the British monarchs, I think people would still talk about them and care about them and probably still hand them things on a silver platter.
It also feels a bit like a British version of the problem the U.S. also has with hyping up nationalistic spirit in such a way as to have people believe their nation and their countrymen are automatically good and glorious, without first having to earn it. It makes for a cultural disconnect between action and valor - like you don’t have to do good things to be good, you don’t have to give a shred of thought to criticism, you just are fundamentally good even if you do things you’d criticize others for.
In the U.S. this takes the form of rampant historical revisionism and lionizing the founding fathers. I don’t know if the figureheads being dead makes it better or worse, though. At least a living figurehead is more obviously just a human person and will occasionally fuck up in public enough to be obvious around the propaganda, whereas the founding fathers genereally have their loves sanitized and idealized in history classes. But on the other hand the living symbol still has power, even if it’s mostly “soft” power and $$$$ power.
Which country are you from?
Nørvei… sorry, that’s my accent. Nordvei… Norway. There we go.
Tror att du försöker säga Norge, eller?
Not really if you come from anywhere outside the Americas. Half of Europe and Asia still have kings/emperor’s and a big chunk of countries exist under other nations royals like the British Commonwealth.
I’m Finnish, and as I noted in another comment here we’re surrounded by constitutional monarchies and I don’t find “well everyone does it” a very compelling argument for aristocracy
no, its still an extremely weird thing to see in the modern age regardless of how common it is
Yeah I’m from the Netherlands and I also find it strange. It’s like this odd thing that you read about in history books and yet it exists today. The king sometimes gives people knighthood. They kneel before him and he stands there with a sword and says some words, and then boom you are a knight! It’s wild and something out of fantasy stories.