@diver saidFrom across the pond, I think that was a considerate kindness that King Charles did, so that William would not have to deal with it.
Prince Andrew is now just “Andrew”. But why and who effectively did it? Imo it was Prince William the heir to the throne. Clearly Will loathes his uncle Andy because Will knows it all. I think William will be a big reformer of the Monarchy, and I think it is needed and will be welcomed.
Thoughts on this topic?
@mchill saidPretty sure many have, and thank goodness Antifa in frog suits did not really burn down Powell's Book Store during the Battle for Oregon (let's hope!). 😉
Thoughts on this topic?
I don't want to hit this too hard, but I wonder if anyone has given some thought to disbanding these royal family's altogether, selling the crown jewels, royal palaces, and lands, taking that money and using it for the good of the common people i.e. transportation projects, infrastructure, energy projects etc. Then - Insisting these people do something useful instead of just posing for photo's
I'm kind of a Michigander from the Chicago area now living in Florida (which seems increasingly less free), therefore my views are from across the pond (or maybe a different pond).
At almost 66, I think there might still be a place for such a tradition, for the sake of continuity with the past as well as throughout whatever democratic changes, and also for the sake of tourism and whatever other interest the Royal Family might generate.
Plus, to whatever extent land and property rights exist (at least in our social contract(s) ), it would be incorrect for them to be suddenly divested of their land and property.
But that consideration is a diversion. I imagine there would be an immaterial and unquantifiable benefit to allowing The House of Windsor to carry on.
As for other royal families, maybe there's something similar going on, e.g., with the Dragonfly Prince of Japan -- if that's okay with the people of Japan, how would that be any of your business?
1 edit
@Arkturos saidif that's okay with the people of Japan, how would that be any of your business?
Pretty sure many have, and thank goodness Antifa in frog suits did not really burn down Powell's Book Store during the Battle for Oregon (let's hope!). 😉
I'm kind of a Michigander from the Chicago area now living in Florida (which seems increasingly less free), therefore my views are from across the pond (or maybe a different pond).
At almost 66, I think there might s ...[text shortened]... Prince of Japan -- if that's okay with the people of Japan, how would that be any of your business?
I was invited to make it "my business" when the OP asked for my thoughts on this topic. 😏
@mchill saidApart from the financial aspect - a costly family, a costly tradition - can you see other benefits from changing a monarchy into... something else?
if that's okay with the people of Japan, how would that be any of your business?
I was invited to make it "my business" when the OP asked for my thoughts on this topic. 😏
1 edit
@Torunn saidcan you see other benefits from changing a monarchy into... something else?
Apart from the financial aspect - a costly family, a costly tradition - can you see other benefits from changing a monarchy into... something else?
Yes - Royal family members have the privilege of attending some of the finest universities in the world. Getting these educated people to the workplace in business, law, and government would only help the overall economy of each country they represent. They can keep their royal titles if they want, but I would much prefer to see these folks managing a business or practicing law than simply dressing up in pretty clothes and getting their pictures taken.
@mchill saidIn the UK the Royal Family's economic contribution is estimated to be between £1.8 billion and £2.5 billion annually. (Through tourism etc).
can you see other benefits from changing a monarchy into... something else?
Yes - Royal family members have the privilege of attending some of the finest universities in the world. Getting these educated people to the workplace in business, law, and government would only help the overall economy of each country they represent. They can keep their royal titles if they want, ...[text shortened]... siness or practicing law than simply dressing up in pretty clothes and getting their pictures taken.
I don't think they would generate as much income for the country if they worked as lawyers or the like. - Do you?
@mchill saidI believe you are right in saying their skills could be much more useful elsewhere. But what about the nation? How would you suggest it would work instead? President?
can you see other benefits from changing a monarchy into... something else?
Yes - Royal family members have the privilege of attending some of the finest universities in the world. Getting these educated people to the workplace in business, law, and government would only help the overall economy of each country they represent. They can keep their royal titles if they want, ...[text shortened]... siness or practicing law than simply dressing up in pretty clothes and getting their pictures taken.
@Torunn saidWe'll leave that to our American friends.
I believe you are right in saying their skills could be much more useful elsewhere. But what about the nation? How would you suggest it would work instead? President?
@mchill saidNo, not if the continuation of a (constitutional) monarchy would be more beneficial to more people (and other sentient beings) than its absence.
can you see other benefits from changing a monarchy into... something else?
Yes - Royal family members have the privilege of attending some of the finest universities in the world. Getting these educated people to the workplace in business, law, and government would only help the overall economy of each country they represent. They can keep their royal titles if they want, ...[text shortened]... siness or practicing law than simply dressing up in pretty clothes and getting their pictures taken.
I imagine the difference could perhaps be intuited, but not calculated.