• twinnie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    9 months ago

    What exactly do you hate about him? Is it his stance on climate change or the Prince Trust maybe? The Royal family are an important source of culture, tourism, and soft power when the UK’s overseas influence is waning. What good to you think will come of getting rid of them?

    • Zellith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The Royal family are an important source of culture, tourism, and soft power

      The Royal family isnt an important source of tourism.

      • atp2112@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Palaces like Versailles and Sanssouci get millions of visitors every year without a group of racists and pedophiles around and actively in power to give it some greater meaning.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The UK truly is in shambles if their tourism industry and culture depend on a cabal of ghouls siphoning vast amounts of wealth from the people purely for show.

      Personally, I like to think the people of the UK have a lot more to them than their vestigial rulers.

      • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        9 months ago

        It doesn’t explain why you have so much venom. I see the royal family as British heritage. I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people. Certainly not enough to explain the hate.

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          9 months ago

          You know what else is a British heritage? Famines in India.

          Aristocracy is privilege without any kind of merit whatsoever. It costs the tax payer millions and undermines democracy.

        • Zellith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          9 months ago

          So some guy came to England, killed another guy who claimed to rule it, and now we have to watch their family spend eternity in decadent luxury because “British Heritage”. pfft.

          Tell you what. I’ll go perform some actions that make myself king, and then a few generations from now my family will be British heritage. Then we can all be happy.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          a monarchy with no real power

          I don’t know if it’s that you don’t know anything about the royal family, or that you don’t know anything about how power works, or both.

          • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            They have influence, not governing power. Sure you could argue they don’t deserve the influence they have just for being in that position. The main point however is questioning the /hate/. I know you’re not the poster who I was replying to, but I didn’t want to distract the point of my post. Why should we hate the monarchy so much?

            • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              They have influence, not governing power

              The old man that this post is about literally does have governing power, not only in the UK but also in 14 other countries including Australia and Canada. A common argument made by monarchists is that the monarch’s actual influence is negligible, and their governing power should be ignored because it is only ceremonial.

              As Wikipedia puts it:

              Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch’s behalf. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Monaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a dire political emergency or on advice of government.

              But… there is a catch:

              screenshot of the top of wikipedia "royal assent" article showing "Not to be confused with King's Consent."

              It turns out that there is also a less formal process (or a “parliamentary convention”; another part of the UK’s heritage is having an “unwritten constitution”, whatever that means) called King’s Consent whereby the monarch, in secret, is consulted before parliament is allowed to debate anything which might affect their personal interests. And it turns out, a lot of things might affect their personal interests, so, this procedure has been and continues to be used to review, shape, and in some cases veto, numerous laws before they are allowed to be debated by parliament. You can read more here.

              🤡

            • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              We shouldn’t hate the monarchy, necessarily. We should hate monarchy as a concept.

              It’s archaic, it formalises and legitimises unbelievable levels of inequality and elitism, and it gives rise to at least the strong possibility (and in the UK’s case at least, the actuality) of a tiered legal system, with some laws simply not applying to some people because of their position.

              It’s a repulsive idea, based on historical might and hereditary right, and with no regard for democracy or equality of all people.

              • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                That makes sense. I agree with that. Thank you.

                I felt somewhat disheartened that the response of a guy announcing he has cancer is filled with such toxicity.

        • noxfriend@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          They are “British heritage” because they killed, conquered and stole from our ancestors.

            • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              sorry, but arent the crimes of their fathers the sole basis for our worshipping them, allowing tbem political power and sending the pricks millions upon millions of tax payer pounds?

              you dont reckon its a little disingenuous to complain about people shitting on their heritage when said heritage is the entire argument for their existence

              • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                You’re not wrong. I take the view that our history, be it good or bad, is part of who we are as a people. However, I wouldn’t want Britain to abolish the monarchy without good reason, and something that occured in the here and now rather than the past.

                There are some replies to this thread that have enlightened me on the power the monarchy holds, which I don’t agree they shoud have. I initially thought the monarchy was a symbolic relic, but it seems it’s not the case.

        • Aggravationstation@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t see how having a monarchy with no real power has any effect on the day to day lives of British people.

          Then what the hell is the point in the amount of tax money that we spend on them? If tourism is such a big money spinner for the country then getting rid of them and keeping the related buildings would still bring in money without having to pay for the decadent lives of these parasites.

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      What good to you think will come of getting rid of them?

      We’d become a proper modern country where the person who represents the nation is chosen by the nation? We’d move on from a system where who’s up front simply depends on who their mum or dad were? We’d rid ourselves of a system trained with centuries of imperial exploitation, racism and subjugation? We’d open up new tourism opportunities, with the palaces and castles being available for anyone to visit, a la Versailles?

      And that’s just off the top of my head.