Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not just disband the lot of them, kick them out of the fancy houses, sell off all the fancy knick-knacks, and split the $$ between all of the Brits? Are the Royals really anything other than rich bums? Not meant to offend any Crown-lovers here, just the opinion of a guy from Alabama, so take it for what it's worth.
View Quote
I agree. Bunch of pompous elitist assholes. Why do they still have kings and queens??? Are the English people THAT stupid?
View Quote
Remember that our british friends are "royal monarchists".
BUt, my favorite saying about *all* royalty is "the only good royal, is a dead royal".
(even the beloved ones).
View Quote
I think there are two issues that I just don't understand about people's dislike for royalty.
To a certain extent, their money and wealth is NO different from that of people like the Kennedy's, Vanderbilts, etc - there are millions of worthless human beings out there who haven't earned or deserved the money or priveledge their ancestor's hard work have given them.
Paris Hilton seems to be the perfect example of that. Would you advocate that rich U.S. families should have their money and priviledge taken away from them if they didn't earn it in their own generation? Of course not - so why hold inherited wealth in SOME specific European families to such an unfair standard. I honestly don't understand that logic - it seems very inconsistent and unecessarily vindictive.
I suppose the repsonse could be that it is not just the money, but the priviledged positions - i.e. being BORN into a position. However, I think that is a big misunderstanding. First of all, people like Paris Hilton are clearly BORN into privildge and position, so I still don't see much of a difference - but second, I don't think you realize how little power and influence the royals have, and how much obligation and service these people have to perform their entire lives. If you look at all the "priviledge" it really is not any different from the extremely wealthy - but the difference is that the wealthy can do whatever the hell they want, whereas royals (especially those in the line of suceession) have immense amounts of obligations.
Keep in mind as well, that some royal families (the one I am obviously most familiar with is the one of Denmark) pretty have held the country together for over a THOUSAND YEARS, and even though in some ways they pretty much owned it, they also gave it up as we moved into a more democratic and modern era. I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping a monarchy to honor everything they have done for the country - in the same way that we honor veterans for their contributions to the country.
Plus, if you knew some of these people, it's not like they are automatically snobs or assholes. The crown prince of Denmark, Frederik, served his military service as a recruit like everyone else and later served as a squad leader (I know he was held to the EXACT same standards and hard training, because we served int eh same regiment at the same time) - before ever going to officer's school to earn the officer's rank that he could just have had for the asking. His brother did the same (we were at sergeant's school together). After becoming an officer, he qualified for the Danish navy's counterpart to SEAL teams, and completed their version of "BUDs" training.
Sorry about babbling - I'm sure I'm not going to change anyone's opinions, but I'm honestly confused about the hostility that some of you show.
(btw - I don't consider a whole lot of existing royal families to actually be royal - things like Saudi "princes", African "kings", those jokers in Monaco, and a lot of other "royalty" are nothing more than rich assholes who are trying to buy respectability. I hate those people. It wouldn't surprise me if Bill Gates became the next king of Sweden, for instance [;)] ).