Why do people today still support the monarchy?

Question

Not just the one with England, but other countries too.

Nobody here is bothered that they are ridiculously rich with titles and power, and possibly tax-free? Just because they were born into it, not because they earned it?

Sounds corrupt to me.

Answer 1

People support monarchy because they want to. HM the queen had said that, they (meaning her family) would "go quietly" if that was the will of the people. I imagine it's much the same elsewhere. Peasants' uprisings need not be limited to England.

Answer 2

idk

there are a lot of things screwed up with the world

Answer 3

The British Monarchy have a complete absence of political power, making them infinitely less harmful than the United States "Monarchy", where certain families are "ridiculously rich with (position) and power, and possibly tax-free, just because they were born into it, not because they earned it.

Sounds corrupt to me."

Florida 2000? Florida 2004?

Republics should have Virtue at their heart, but Monarchy should have Honour at it's heart.

The Monarchy are an Archaism, but there are good reasons why you need archaic, tribal non-political figureheads.

In an ideal world, the Police, Civil Service, Armed Forces, and Members of Parliament would declare Loyalty to "the State". In practice, anything this abstracts is difficult to die for, and people declare loyalty to what they think the state is (problematic). In practice, people find it much easier to declare loyalty to people.

If you were making a wish-list of qualities that the recipient of oathes of loyalty would have, you might include; an absence of political aspiration; personifies Honour; a Public Service ethic coded into their Soul; pathological immunity to Bribery; and someone who would consider being asked to lead a Coup d'Etat logically absurd (i.e. the very very last person you must ever give this Authority to is a politician).

Investing somebody with Total Authority but allowing them Zero Power would be incredibly stressful to almost anyone, because it is human nature to give into the temptation to use it. The more "real world experience" someone had before they were chosen to hold such authority, the more exceptional the person and the training would need to be.

To perform adequately they would either;

a) need to be a completely exceptional person (difficult to directly detect this kind of exceptional-ness), who recieved completely exceptional training (expensive to provide - difficult to design the syllabus - no good for any other job if they fail the course); or

b) an ordinary person, who has never had "real world experience" i.e. chosen, shaped, and trained for the task from birth. Part of the training environment would be to make the person so rich they can't be bought. There is nothing you could offer the Queen that could possibly make them sell out the UK, because she is the UK.

It all depends how much moral authority you think politicians can carry, and for how long. Politicians start their period in power clean, just like Tony Blair did. Like Tony Blair, they question the system whereby they wield supreme Executive power in the name of the Monarch, because it is a limitation on them. Like 1997, they persuade the public to considers the option of Constitutional Change. However, as we have seen since then, "Power often corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". The Political Party in power have absolute power, and Politicians are selected for their ability to win popularity contests and act opportunistically. Monarchy, by comparison, will always be straight, classic, and timeless.

The Monarchy pays more Tax to the Crown than it recieves in  Civil List, therefore is being run at a modest profit.

You haven't thought your arguement through.

Answer 4

I think is it's a feeling of certainty, feeling of conservative values they think should stand forever and they ( the royalties ) are some sort of symbols, which impersonate all that an average person cherish and wish he would have...It makes people think somewhere along this line:

If they have it all, they'll surely provide for me to have at least some of it...

Answer 5

The Queen holds loads of power which is carefully used by the government. If we ha a president it would cost more and they would have a ridiculas amount of power.

Answer 6

If it sounds corrupt it is because you do not understand it.They are not tax free.They pay taxes on their incomes the same as anyone else.Please get your facts straight before posting a question that then becomes a statement.What would you say about the children of Donald Trump or Bill Gates?They would,according to your theory,not be entitled to inherit their fathers fortunes.I will leave what little I have,to whoever I d**n well please and will not be dictated to,by you or anyone else.

Answer 7

Because at the moment the only alternative is President Gordon Brown - Give us the Queen any day. The Royal family is also really good for the tourism industry. lol :-)

Answer 8

People are afraid of change

Answer 9

Since we have to have a head of state, I would just as soon have an hereditary monarchy as an elected president.  I don't particularly want to have to vote in yet more tedious elections.  

And an elcted president would not be any cheaper, and would very likely be more expensive.  The president of italy for instance cost the taxpayers £124 a year each, whereas the Queen only costs us 66p a year each.  As for power, they really have very little of that.  The Queen advises the Prime Minister, but cannot direct government policy.

I think that the Queen does earn her money, she works very hard, and she's still working at 82.  How many people do you know who are still working at that age?  

If we had an elected president living in Buckingham Palace instead of the Queen, they would not cost us any less money, and they would still be supported by the taxpayers.  And I doubt they would do as good a job as the Queen.

Answer 10

I do agree with you that it seems a bit corrupt and that they were born into wealth and privilage and did not have to do any work for it. However, the reason the UK, Canada, Austrailia supports the monarchy is because they own the parliment. The only reason we have democracy is because the queen allowed it to happen. She allowed it to happen because that's what the people wanted. The parliment in those countries is actually called "The Queen's Parliment" If she wanted to get rid of it and just rule it all herself... she could...Its sad that we are not a true democracy

Answer 11

Corrupt usually has to do with behind doors, only discovered if stop, denounced or yet noticed by anyone - usually that also as something to do with it.

Monarchies or republics are respectable if those in charge also are. All other things belong to each nation's social values that most times have awkward ways to attack monarchy to sooner or later replace them in plenty of its essence

Answer 12

Why support any kind of tribalist collectivism {communism, monarchy...]?