• lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      10 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
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 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
          9
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          10 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?

          • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 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
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 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.

          • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 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.

            🤡

      • Aggravationstation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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.