Capitalism and Monarchy

Post Reply New Topic

It doesn't make sense to want a capitalist society with a queen.

Even in a constitutional monarchy such as the UK, you are giving a family wealth for either doing nothing (that's how I see it) or (arguably) doing a job they were born to and couldn't be rejected from.

I'd rather give a poor family a flat than give a rich family a couple dozen palaces.

I also don't think monarchy is good for the mental health of those in the monarchy. I think that's why Harry left it, he saw what it did to his mother and wanted no part of that for Meghan or himself.

Yes. I personally do not believe in sovereign states, i.e. countries that have Kings and Queens that are considered appointed by God.

The UK (unlike the US) are still practising this bizarre embodiment.

But that is life, some will always recognise tradition and always follow the traditional ways.

In the background, the world moves on...

Although look at how much those in the wealthy cliques of the world love recognition from the UK elite clique.
For example, see how much the wealthy celebs love the British aristocracy and receiving recognition from them...


Funny when you realise that the UK Royal family have a horrid history but at the same time considered
by the poor to be desirable!

A prerequisite for a functioning capitalist society is the existence of stable political institutions - especially when it comes to enforcing property rights.

Historically, monarchies have been somewhat (but rarely completely) successful at providing such a stable framework, as the alternative was often overlapping jurisdictions between nobles, clergy, clans, tribes... or basically whoever could afford to outfit an army on their own.

Today, however, in countries with a modern state apparatus, monarchies are little more than living museums feeding a nostalgia fetish.

We have a Queen in Denmark. She makes a nice (but somewhat bland) speech every New Year's Eve and she holds banquets with visiting foreign leaders. And when she goes abroad, she is often accompanied by businesses eager to sign trade deals with other countries, so she is likely a good Public Relations department for Danish commerce.

And her palace makes for a good tourist attraction.

Is the Danish monarchy worth its $ 11.5 per citizen annual price tag?

Conservative leaders are not capitalists because they want a meritocracy; they are capitalists because they want to preserve the wealth and power of those that have it. Most non-wealthy conservatives don't even care about capitalism in a laissez-faire sense. They just don't want government aid going to people they think are undeserving, which, in traditionally monarchist cultures, does not include the monarchy.

What you are mising out on is that the Royal family do not share the freedoms in todays society that you and I share, and these freedoms are more valueable then gold.
So when you notice their wealth what good is it if you have (By no choice of your own doing as you have had this since you were born) no freedom to enjoy it.

I have to give it to our queen is that she has been very loyal to her calling. She did not have to be or do it.
And I don't blame her grandson for the choice that he has made either as there is no right or wrong decision. Whichever way they have chosen not to look back. To do what is right in the realm they have chosen is all they can do and all anyone can do.

And I absolutely LOVE our Queens husbands sense of humour. Every time the press seem shocked I have such a good laugh over it, as I know his remarks are meant to be taken in humour as I do the same. I think he is hillarious and such a blessing, and I think we all need to see the funny side in life sometimes. It is what keeps us sane!

May God bless our Queen and ALL her family. They are our treasure and are the last thing that keeps Britain great.

(It is not about wealth or money because do they actually own their wealth? We own them as much as they own us. We are all part of each other in this way here in our country, and I recognize this as a Welshman).
True. We as a country really need to help all those who have needs, especially those who have lost their homes or have found themselves homelsss... We need to try to help everyone. We also need something and someone to be in a position to encourage us, and this is our Queen, and she does do a good job in this and goes out of her way not to be critical, but to be encouraging. (I have also seen that Prince Charles also has this quality and it is important).

I don't think a "constitutional monarchy" is all that bad, actually.

What I am saying is that we do not know how important each of us is. How the little things matter. Just smiling at someone can brighten up their day and if they are happy they can make othefs happy as well. We all need that as we go through life.

As long as the constitutional monarch doesn't try to overtake the constitution.

Just a nit picky correction.

The word "sovereign" DOES mean "a monarch".

But the phrase "sovereign state" does not mean "a state ruled by a sovereign". It means "an independent country (regardless of its form of government)" as opposed to being real estate owned by another country.

If I declared my ranch in Montana to be an independent country, and somehow were able to raise a standing army to guard my borders, and got it recognized as legit seperate country by the UN, and other countries, then my ranch would be "a sovereign state". While my neighbors ranches would not be sovereign states, but private properties within the US.

Before 1776 what is now the US was 13 colonies of Britain (13 non sovereign states). After 1790 the US was one independent nation, and was "a sovereign state". Even though ironically we had gotten RID of government BY sovereigns (ie monarchs).

When nations feud over territory (like islands in the south china sea) its over which nation has "sovereignty" over the territory (even if neither country has a monarch).

Even as someone who lives in a commonwealth country (Canada), I don't have a problem with the Queen. In fact, I have great respect for her. I know she can exercise more power than she has, but that's one of the things I respect the most about her. The orangutan who can't leave the White House soon enough would be terrible monarch, and he's definitely the antithesis to what kind of leader Queen Elizabeth II is.

Sure, some money goes to the Queen and the rest of the royal family, and sure, she's more of a figurehead than an individual who would truly step in and run the show, though I think that has more to do with the kind of ruler she chooses to be as opposed to the kind of ruler she has the ability to be. I'm sure she could be far more ruthless and become far more involved in the politics of the various countries she presides over. But, I'm also glad she's not. She does a fine job IMHO of presiding over what she does, so I don't think she's a complete waste of taxpayer's money.

Besides, we live in an age when Canadian tax dollars go towards producing stuff like the dub for this: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyfOAs ... JjAbXklV7A

I have no doubt that tax dollars go towards far worse things than the above. Sure, they could go to far more worthy causes such as ensuring Canadians don't all go bankrupt before COVID can be cured, but they can certainly go to far worse things than supporting the Queen and everything she does.

Of course, the US fares so much better. How much of American taxpayer dollars did the orange oaf waste on frivolous cases to overturn an election that he lost fair and square? At least Canadian tax dollars were wasted on what can best be described as random physical humour that may or may not be appropriate for children. American tax dollars were just wasted on nothing with remote merit. Yay for monarchy-free capitalism?

Reminds me when I said to someone in London that it's like paying for the welfare when I found out the royal families didn't have to pay any utilities and the city does from peoples taxes. That lady had never been so insulted in her life.

I assume you are focussing on modern monarchs rather than historical. Orwell sold the principle of a figurehead monarch pretty well. It can help to separate actual power from hero worship and personality cults (these things exist regardless of the system of government and someone will try to acquire it). The Queen receives all the love and adoration rulers accumulate while those with actual power are just lowly civil servants with no job security and are treated by most the way dogs treat lampposts. The monarch gets the palaces and the flag parades, the prime minister gets a terraced house in London. The line has blurred from time to time, especially during the awful Blair era but the principle is sound I think.

The actual amount the Royal Family costs is disputable, but you could make the similar arguments for a republic. Does the president need the White House or Air Force One? Should we make him work out of a shabby office building? I don't know but I don't think the psychological effects of visible splendour can be entirely ignored.

Either you earn your right to be rich through hard work or you don't, life isn't fair and I shouldn't feel guilty for being somewhat 'landed' in a middle class way.

If the Windsors get to be loaded through the state then I shouldn't feel bad about being middle class through parents.

The president earned it.

Of course you could make the point that most of them come from rich families nowadays but you could say that for a lot of billionaires too.

All the Windsors do is be born or get married.