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

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.

My understanding is the royal family owns many of those houses and historic sites as private property. They loan them to the government and keep them open to the public now, but if they ere no longer royal they'd have no real incentive to keep doing so. So the argument does make sense in that way.

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)

Even it the monarchy stopped, the tourism for those big monumental places would not go away. You'd still get the tourism cash, but then you could funnel it all towards maintaining the buildings, and not on maintaining the royal lifestyle and security and travel arrangements and clothes, etc. etc.

I'm Canadian, and I visited Paris because of the buildings, history, and yes, I went to Versailles. I went to London (mostly because my sister knew someone there where we could stay at a cheap rate), and I was interested in the buildings and the history and the historic palaces (Hampton Court). Actually, if you didn't have the monarchy, I'd have been able to tour more palaces, since they're off-limits when people are living there.

Anyway, you got some of my money, but I didn't come to see your royals (I guess they're kind of my royals too, drat it, but I hope that changes).

As I already mentioned, I am not from the UK.

The tourism for the monumental places wouldn't go away no. There is a lot of other related tourism income that would go though. There is a shit ton of commemorative memorabilia, picture books, special magazines that rakes in a lot of money that would stop existing when you get rid of a monarchy.

(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

At least the money goes to charities and not into his pockets?

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.

I'm Canadian and I'm fond of her too. Fond of a lot of them really; it was awesome seeing William over here with our military, and seeing other members of the royal family serve. Here the PM decided to have a fancy paint job put on the military transport plane he occasionally rides on, so now there's one less for our troops to use.

...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.

Snap! I just posted the same thing below you. My parents took me to a protest over the dismissal and there's a newspaper photo of me in my little sunhat sitting on my dad's shoulders while people wave signs all around us.

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

Didn't they make it law (in 1986, IIRC) that the G-G no longer has that power?

ayrt

indeed

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only