Monarchy vs Republic

[Altfish]

With nearly 10 million visitors every year, Versailles is one of the most visited historic sites in the world.

Visitors to Versailles (1682-1789)


Windsor Castle and Frogmore House were by far the most popular attraction, with 1.44 million visitors , followed by Buckingham Palace during its summer opening period, with a little under half a million visitors.

Royal tourism: admission numbers by establishment | UK 2018

Seeing how France's most popular palace attracts 7 times as many visitors as Britain's most popular palace, but France hasn't had a monarch in over a century, it would seem that you don't actually need a royal family to have royal tourism.

If anything, evicting the current residents would free up more of the British castles to be better tourist attractions.

I think the key difference is that most people going to London go to see the likes of Buckingham Palace BUT doesn't go inside. Same with Windsor, I've been to both on numerous occasions but never been in. I've been to Versailles once and went inside.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the key difference is that most people going to London go to see the likes of Buckingham Palace BUT doesn't go inside. Same with Windsor, I've been to both on numerous occasions but never been in. I've been to Versailles once and went inside.

Yes, I'm sure that's it: 8.4 million tourists a year come all the way from Japan or the USA to see castles because of your royal family, but just mill about on the grounds and don't go inside.

... while at Versailles, everyone who visits goes in.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, I'm sure that's it: 8.4 million tourists a year come all the way from Japan or the USA to see castles because of your royal family, but just mill about on the grounds and don't go inside.

... while at Versailles, everyone who visits goes in.

Buck Palace and Windsor are not always open. In fact until about 15-years ago Buck Palace did not open.

 

[metis]

But what sort of insight could a king or queen offer that would make their guidance more valuable than that of a random person off the street?

I really didn't say "insight" but that a well-known spokesperson is often one that others can rally around. For example, when the queen in the UK speaks, people do tend to listen but not necessary always follow her advice. In a crisis situation, having such a figure can sometimes be of benefit.

 

[Father Heathen]

In theory, a monarch should have been raised from birth to understand politics, world affairs and the legal system &c. Rather than a commoner with little actual exposure to world events and negligible real education (one does not necessarily have to have studied politics to be in politics, after all). The ideal is that a monarch should have such exposure from a young age and a holistic education that he or she will be fit and understanding enough to lead the nation.

Do you feel like the monarchy and the "subjects" can understand and relate to one another well enough?

 

[Estro Felino]

Buck Palace and Windsor are not always open. In fact until about 15-years ago Buck Palace did not open.

I don't understand what you would like Britain to become

- A parliamentary republic like Italy? Where our president behaves like a king and is a phoney Judas towards our Prime Minister?

-A semipresidential republic like France?

- or a presidential republic like USA?

 

[Rival]

Do you feel like the monarchy and the "subjects" can understand and relate to one another well enough?

I do, with people especially such as Harry and William.

 

[Duke_Leto]

The constitutional monarchy we Bits have is my preferred.

Why is that? The Queen doesn't have much power at all, so is it just for sentimental reasons?

 

[Shad]

Voted Republic (US model). I am against any form of government which considers who's birth canal one passed through the most important factor.

 

[Rival]

Why is that? The Queen doesn't have much power at all, so is it just for sentimental reasons?

I'm a fan of pomp and tradition.

 

[Shad]

Why is that? The Queen doesn't have much power at all, so is it just for sentimental reasons?

The Queen has a lot of power of Parliament and the nation. The Queen is actually above the law. You are confusing not using that power as if having no power at all.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why is that? The Queen doesn't have much power at all, so is it just for sentimental reasons?

No...it's much more than that. European dynasties through their history have showed absolute loyalty to the nation-state. This creates a juridic bound between a family and the nation.
[For example the Savoy, chez nous, have fought hard to reunify a Italy that was disunited until 1870.]

When a head of state is a commoner, he\she can be secretely bound to selfish interests...or serve someone else's interests

 

[Jumi]

Since I've never lived in a monarchy, from the outside most western monarchs seem like cross-generational celebrity families on a very rich welfare program despite being quite rich to begin with. Of course their ancestors were responsible for more deaths than most and lost absolute control over their countries. Of course there's absolute monarch still that potentially control all aspects of life in their country from religion to justice.

 

[Jumi]

No...it's much more than that. European dynasties through their history have showed absolute loyalty to the nation-state. This creates a juridic bound between a family and the nation.

It can lead to some interesting things like a family above the people, speaking a different language and having completely different values from them. Well, at least the nobles under them will follow in learning said language.

 

[Estro Felino]

It can lead to some interesting things like a family above the people, speaking a different language and having completely different values from them. Well, at least the nobles under them will follow in learning said language.

As for us Italians....we were a Nation...who spoke the same language and we needed to be a unified country.
Not to mention that Rome was under a theocracy...totally anachronistic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Buck Palace and Windsor are not always open. In fact until about 15-years ago Buck Palace did not open.

... because the royal family often live in them. Evict the royal family and you can tap into way more of that royal tourism money that was important to you a few posts back.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is that? The Queen doesn't have much power at all, so is it just for sentimental reasons?

The power she does have tends to matter most in crises. For instance, the monarch has the power to choose the party that forms the government, to dissolve the government, and to prorogue parliament. All of these powers have real potential for abuse.

 

[Estro Felino]

The power she does have tends to matter most in crises. For instance, the monarch has the power to choose the party that forms the government, to dissolve the government, and to prorogue parliament. All of these powers have real potential for abuse.

Queen Elizabeth has never abused her power.
When you have a president of the Republic who has a political agenda which is antithetical to the Prime Minister's aims, he can behave dishonestly.
We are living a nightmare with a pro-Brussels president who is on the verge of being tried for High Treason

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I admit to knowing next to nothing about the British monarchy …

Then why post?

but I presume their wealth is gained from taxes?

No, it's income from the royal estates. Prince Charles has the Duchy of Cornwall estate and the Queen has the Duchy of Lancaster. The last time I checked, he was giving 30% of his income to the government, while she gave 80%. By comparison, the maximum rate for corporation tax in the UK is 19%!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Queen Elizabeth has never abused her power.

I think that remains to be seen. She seems to have avoided scandal herself fairly well during her reign, unlike most of her predecessors.

... but the monarchy is not just one person. Her heur heir apparent has certainly abused his power as Prince of Wales, just to give one example.

And her representatives certainly have abused their power.

Here in Canada, like most Commonwealth Realms, royal power is vested in a Governor General and Lieutenant Governors when the monarch is absent (i.e. virtually all of the time). These officials - appointed by the Queen and accountable to the Queen alone - have been involved in their share of abuse and scandal.