[deleted]
The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
341–350 of 599 posts
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if y…
> Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. Only because of Hollywood accounting. Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government d…
The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other places kings and queens have lived)
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#343I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…
I view British monarchy as tyranny prevention mechanism. Democracies are notoriously weak and can collapse at any momemnt by a charasmatic leader. Any long lasting democracies need some serious mechanisms to squash the tyranny. In American version this is achieved by having 3 almost equally powerful branches of governments. In British version, this is achieved by subdued monarchie. It's much like injecting a dead vir…
Why would you want a solution that makes one family be treated as if they're above everyone else by birth? Is that the signal that as a country you want to give your citizens? I cannot understand how people consent to monarchies in so called developed countries while at the same time making huge fusses about everything else related to equality.
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if y…
If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.
This is the point that people who say "but what about tourism?" completely and spectacularly miss.
Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. Having no royal people in there makes zero difference to that.
We could have the tourism without the actual royals, 100% no problem there
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#345Many will talk of title to a crown. What right had Caesar to the empire? Might first made kings, and laws were then most sure When like the Draco's they were writ in blood
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que... , and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com…
>Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled I'm guessing you're not a Brit? A problem with that is the British people support them - about 72% for 21% against and I think they've been clearly in favour for at least the last century. So you can't really do it unless you get a dictatorship in to go against the people.
The eurosceptics never gave up in the face of impossible poll odds; why should republicans?
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que... , and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com…
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc.. My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peacef…
It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business.
But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than radical change.
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.
But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability.
You don't want one person having both.
Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que... , and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com…
> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc.. My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peacef…
The cutesiness of the Royal family is pragmatic as well. She can take some of the State Dinners that would otherwise go to the PM.
It seems silly but the US has to have the President go to everything and time is money to the President.
Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought
#350I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…
> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que... , and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com…
Here is Vox, of all places, arguing in favor of constitutional monarchy
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/queen-elizabeth-constit...