fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2405 ]

[ SECRET POST #2405 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2405 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 099 secrets from Secret Submission Post #344.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, TBF, with the whole royal baby craze- a British friend of mine just told me there was such a massive backlash because many people are just sick of the royalty and how much they cost them and how the constant yammering about the royal baby is just distracting from the real issues in the UK.

Well sure, but you can keep in mind that it is good for them as a couple that they had a baby while also reminding people that the existence of the monarchy is repugnant to human dignity and fundamentally unjust, and that the obsession with the royalty is a servile obsession not suitable to a free people.

Yiis,

remember people shouldn't be given status because of who their parents were, but their accomplishments in life.

Like George Bush.

Democracy is the worst form of government we have.

Aside from all the other ones, that is.

At least George Bush came with an expiration date.

And Royalty have no, or for all intents and purposes in a practical sense - absolutely no power in UK governance.

They're a symbol of our heritage nothing more.

If we're looking for extremely low class mobility, and a concentration of power in select dynasties the US is going to be pretty near the top for the western world (so is the UK to be fair).

Anon who wrote the first reply-

I'm not British, and as I said, I only talked with a British friend of mine about it- but it's my understanding that although the royal house has no power, it's still mostly funded by people's taxes?

(I'm not American either, BTW).

They make more than they cost through tourism.

And even setting that aside, there's a certain value to be had in maintaining pieces of heritage, they're just a living example.

That's an often repeated argument, but it doesn't really make sense. Do you honestly think people would stop visiting royal/historic sites if there was no royal family? Plenty of tourists still visit Versailles even though the French monarchy is gone.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 12:20 (UTC) - Expand

So is a president though. Any head of state (regardless of how much power they functionally have) will be funded through people's taxes. in general though royal houses also earn back the amount of money invested in them via taxes through tourism and by being part of the national brand which can be very influential during foreign trade missions.

Also adding to that, there is a big part of the cost of a monarchy that would exist whether the monarchy exists or not. Think about all the monumental palaces and stuff. Even if the monarchy stops that cost does not go away.

(for full disclosure. I'm also from a country with a monarchy, though not the UK. Mainly I just hate the 'omg but so expensive' argument cause the people who cite it tend to cite it in a very short-sighted manner)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 00:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 01:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 06:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 09:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 16:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 21:33 (UTC) - Expand

Yes, but a head of state like a president or a prime minister is elected by the majority of the people in the country to do his work, and the people can also fire him if needs be.

Monarchy gets money for being born. It's a bit unfair.

Anon who originated the point about the monarchs here.

Of course for all practical intents and purposes the monarchy has no formal power (although Charles still seems to spend a lot of time exerting influence behind the scenes - but then it's also true that the wealthy and well-connected do that whether or not they're technically royalty). But even so, there's still remains the formal status of the monarchy. And if it's objectionable only on a point of principle, it's still on principle objectionable.

I don't see how the US being bad is in any way a defense of England being bad, for Pete's sake. That doesn't make any sense. It's not like it's somehow okay for you guys to be bad just because you are. And I'm perfectly capable of being critical of all the fucked up shit in the US - there's no reason being critical of the one stops you from being critical of the other.

I don't know, I don't think you and I are that far apart. I would say that both countries have a lot of troubling elements in their political system and class mobility that is unacceptably low, and the US is worse in that regard than Britain, and also the existence of a monarchy is unjust in principle.

although Charles still seems to spend a lot of time exerting influence behind the scenes

Do I detect a whiff of eau de Conspiracy!anon here? I was under the impression ol' Chuckles is mostly a batty treehugger with no concept of what it's like to, you know, live like an actual human being.

OK, OK, I admit I got this from a documentary where the hired help were complaining about how alien the monarchs were, when compared with their actual subjects, and that was why all of them loathed Diana so much. So yeah it was a biased documentary.

I really really really don't think (at least I hope) that Charles doesn't have a whole lot of power or influence; because if he does, that may end up coming back to bite the Commonwealth on its collective backside once he's on the throne.

He apparently spends a lot of time talking to and writing letters to government ministers in the UK, and nobody's really sure about what, or whether or not he has any real influence.

There's a bunch of stuff in the Guardian about it - here's a decent piece: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/prince-charles-letters-mps-private-court

Also, here's a piece about how apparently he has a legal right to any money from the estates of anyone who dies without a will in Cornwall, and is currently giving it to his own charities: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/01/prince-charles-intestate-cash-cornwall

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 01:51 (UTC) - Expand

Batty treehugger or not, it'd be really naive to think that someone rich, connected AND of royal blood would somehow not have any political influence in a country like England where all of those things are valued.

Dumb, clueless rich people have huge political influence in the U.S., too. Some are even elected President. There's nothing conspiracy-minded about it, it's just how politics works.

The Queen and Prince Charles do both use the Royal Veto. More than we think. She does have power. Also the Prime Minister has to visit her once a week and she is informed of everything.

I'm British, and in fact these things don't necessarily bother me because I look at the world and think about people like Murdoch, and the big companies that fund The Republican party, and the Tory party here, not to mention religious interests etc. So I tend to feel our constitutional monarchy has done OK in recent years, this is a very liberal country, and laws such as abortion and anti discrimination laws are very safe, not to mention the Queen supports gay marriage. I'm not even a royalist, but I just don't feel hostile toward them, just sort of fond really.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 21:40 (UTC) - Expand

...ISTR the Governor-General (Queen's Representative in Canada) being able to prorogue Parliament, not too long ago. Not nearly long enough ago, at any rate. I am talking out my--hat, let's go with hat--however b/c IDK whether or not old Bess actually has the power to prorogue British Parliament. Given we don't have the whole "house of lords" thing. (Well, we do, it's just called the Senate, and everyone is calling for their heads on platters these days), maybe it's whole other kettle of fish.

Sorry. /cdnpoli

The Governor-General of Australia dismissed a sitting Prime Minister within living memory.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 01:36 (UTC) - Expand

Under certain circumstances (that actually happened in 1975) same in Australia, and it's still the law today.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-04 03:42 (UTC) - Expand

ayrt

indeed

the existence of the monarchy is repugnant to human dignity and fundamentally unjust,

No more so than all unearned wealth and/or fame. Personally the existence of the monarchy makes squat difference to my human dignity whatsoever.

/is British, so we're clear.

...so, do you agree it is fundamentally unjust?

/I am not British but I still have to deal with my countrymen getting caught up in the bread and circuses of these people

Well, I wouldn't call myself a Marxist personally, but there's certainly an argument to be made there.

However, I would argue that there is a difference between unjust systems of power and wealth and resources generally, and the existence of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy generally, in the sense that the latter posits the existence of a fundamental legal and personal distinction between different classes of human beings. It posits a fundamental legal inequality, as opposed to the real inequality which inequality of wealth and bigotry and all those things represent. I don't think any of them are good. But there is something distinct about the existence of a monarchy, or anything of that nature, and I think it is wrong on principle.

There are a ton of people who never have to work in their life because their parents took care of the family's financial security before they were even born. This money they didn't earn might lead them into leading positions in the economy, politics or military, either directly or through guaranteeing them an education without distracting material worries.

That doesn't mean that inheritance is automatically bad - after all, the parents have a right to do with their money as they will, since they did earn it. The morals of inheritance are, as a matter of fact, a really fucking complicated topic.

But if you're not going to complain about all of it, complaining specifically about the royals makes you look like you A) don't actually know what's up there (they're a financial net positive for the UK before even looking at tourism), and B) like you're railing against a visible institution because you can't be bothered to understand the underlying issues in the system.

The question of monarchy and royalty is fundamentally and characteristically different than the question of inheritance in general. Because what the Queen will pass on to her heirs is not just money or influence; it is a unique and significant legal status, that of sovereign over the United Kingdom, and ruler over its subjects. That is an inescapable and real difference. Even if someone is given a massive inheritance from their parents and uses that to purchase influence, that's still different from someone being considered, for their entire life, categorically legally and formally distinct from ordinary people simply by virtue of one's parents. Hereditary monarchy is simply different from inheritance.

Even in the case of inheritance, although it is tricky, we do try to make regulations and taxes to control the effect that inheritance has on society and that massive economic inequities have on society, and we try to ensure that these things are limited. But the case is different here - for one thing, you can't possibly say that the royal family has their position because they've earned it. But more importantly, their inheritance is something other than money, it is a fundamental legal and political distinction.

I fully accept that there's thorny issues surrounding inheritance and surrounding power and social inequity, and that none of those issues would go away if a country got rid of its monarchy. However, being opposed to the monarchy doesn't mean that we can't address those issues at the same time. We can have many political beliefs, and advocate doing many things, simultaneously, especially when those beliefs don't contradict each other in any way and even reinforce each other.

A hereditary monarchy is in itself unjust and wrong, and therefore it should be ended. Full stop. Regardless of whether there are other problems in society (of course there are), or whether it's an economic benefit to the country, whatever the context surrounding it, it is unjust, illegitimate, and insupportable, and should be ended because of that.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only