Hereditary Dynasties Should Have Ended 200 Years Ago – What Keeps Them Afloat?

Post by Jack

The mere fact one is born into a particular family does not warrant a free ride or ruling over others, who doesn’t understand this in the modern world? We made our case against the Royals in 1776 and never had a moment’s regret. The Brits on the other have entered the modern age still stuck this absurd monarchy hanging around their necks and despite every reason to suspend it. Heredity appointments in public life is incompatible with both democracy and meritocracy, which are the least-bad ways to run countries.

Royalists say this does not matter because a monarch no longer “runs” Britain. Yet, they feel absolutely justified in ripping off the British taxpayers for billions of dollars so they can live in fine castles, travel by royal yacht and live far above the working class that supports them.

Now technically the Queen has the power to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament and more. But, in practice when was the last time a royal ever did any of these things? 1800-?

If you think that the House of Windsor is more likely to produce a great leader than any other family with the same advantages think again. The inbred Windsors are no less likely than any other family to produce an heir who is mad or bad. What then?

“The second pitfall is subtler: in the belief that the monarchy forms some kind of constitutional backstop against an overmighty Parliament, Britain is strangely relaxed about the lack of serious checks on its government. It has no written constitution; the current government has plans to repeal a law implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which many Britons recklessly consider a nuisance rather than a safeguard. It is true that monarchs can, as a last resort, stand up for the nation: royalists cite the example of King Juan Carlos of Spain, whose televised address to the nation in 1981 helped prevent a coup. But the more one believes that the head of state’s role really matters, the more serious a problem it is that the monarch is chosen using a mechanism as dodgy as inheritance.”

Opinion polls and the sales of commemorative junk suggest that the Windsor’s remain popular despite common sense reasons to give them the boot. I don’t understand this, why would rational people like supporting these welfare recipients? How could wasting billions on the royals be justified by a small country like the UK, a country that needs to pinch pennies to stay competitive in the real world?

An entire bottom rung of English commoners suffer in poverty in order to keep the royals pampered and living the good life…outrageous. That boarders on a crime, it’s certainly not morally defensible! So, what do the Brits get for their money, they get a public soap opera with a cast of snooty, arrogant characters pretending to better than the rest of us, just because they have a title and we don’t. What a bargain, eh?

My ancestor, Richard Lee, was a Colonel in the British Army around 1650 and he had enough of defending the royals and their frivolous pageantry. He laid down his sword and headed for America to start a new life. A number of our family would soon follow, but unfortunately not all. We established Jamestown and later on Williamsburg and the rest is history. For those that stayed in England, you have our sympathies. Parting thought: Dump the royals like we did, it’s way past time you did.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Hereditary Dynasties Should Have Ended 200 Years Ago – What Keeps Them Afloat?

  1. Tina says:

    Jack you made some very sound, rational points. But in a way you’ve swerved into a tangle of brambles….there’s another hand to play and you know how I live to take the other side 😉

    The royal family does cost the taxpayer quite a lot but it also generates quite a bit of revenue from tourism and souvenirs and creates 1 in 12 jobs:

    According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year. However, the awesomely titled Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, noted that figure is actually down by 24 percent from 2008-2009, for what it’s worth. … The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country’s tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle.
    Tourism is the third-biggest industry in the U.K., the tourism board claims, and supports about 2.6 million jobs — or about one in 12.

    The weddings and new babies add more layers of both revenue and cost.

    The monarchy also is responsible for diplomatic efforts on behalf of the nation. It’s probably why the Queen tolerated the marriage of her son to a (semi) commoner breaking with tradition. Dianna generated a lot of revenue…and then, of course scandal. I doubt the Queen likes feeling like a burden to her people.

    Living in old drafty castles may not be the perk it would seem to be.

    Briton has what is called a constitutional monarchy, an improvement that gradually developed after Magna Carta (1215)…by 1688 the parliament was firmly in place. The constitution is not a single document but rather a collection of documents:

    Britain has instead is an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to refer to Britain’s constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one.

    It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution. This is the ultimate lawmaking power vested in a democratically elected Parliament to create or abolish any law. Other core principles of the British Constitution are often thought to include the rule of law, the separation of government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the existence of a unitary state, meaning ultimate power is held by ‘the centre’ – the sovereign Westminster Parliament. However, some of these principles are mythical (the British constitution may be better understood as involving the fusion of executive and legislature) or in doubt (Parliamentary sovereignty may now be called in question given the combined impact of Europe, devolution, the Courts, and human rights).

    And apparently 80% of Brits love the monarchy!

    Finally, if I had the power to rid Briton of something I’d start with their healthcare system…it’s broken and expensive and America subsidizes it (Rx prices-Rx R and D) to keep it limping along…bad all around. But that’s really an aside.

    Small world, my husbands ancestor, mothers side) was among the first to arrive on our shores. There are a number of family names in her tree that date back to that period in our history…Brown and Gibbs were two of the early sir names. We’re a young country…many of us could be distant cousins.

  2. Libby says:

    I love it, Jack. If you don’t actually have anything, yourself, to resent … you go looking for things.

    Just think of the British Royals as a sort of combination National Trust administrator and public relations exec.

    And we do have our own royals, after a fashion. I hear that you can book yourself a room in the vicinity and spend and entire week taking different tours of that war monger, Randolph Hearst’s, San Simeon.

    I think I already told you that my Dad caught the genealogy bug and traced his line back to a fellow named George in 1742. No idea how he got here. We like to think he was transported.

    Another great bit from “Becoming Jane” … from the lunatic uncle, the judge:

    “… but TWO pigs (stolen) is a cancer on the body politic … and cancers are cut out … transportation for life !”

    • Pie Guevara says:

      You are such a troll horse’s ass from moron hell.

      • Libby says:

        No factual rebuttal?

        Understandable. As it is a fact that a sizable portion of the founding populace were not here of their own free will.

        You want to have some fun. Research the hundred years from the colonization to the declaration … the Declaration was a bloody miracle.

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    Jack, you may find this documentary interesting if you can find it on a service you get. (It free for Amazon Prime members.)

    Britain’s Real Monarch (2003)
    “Tony Robinson unearths new evidence that strongly suggests that the 15th century English King, Edward IV, was illegitimate. If that is the case, the entire royal bloodline that traces its lineage to Edward has no legal right to the throne. Edward fought hard to protect the British monarchy, even through the famed War of Roses, but he left a clouded legacy. So, who now has the right to the throne?”

    • Libby says:

      Pie, read more. The English monarchy has changed hands, dynasties, whatnot, several times since Eddie IV.

      I mean, the current crop of royals are as German as they are English … but the English are not quite the bigots you are, and are willing to accept things … as they are.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    Of further interest for Jack, Tina, et. al. — Lippy’s progressive peers on Vox. You are going to love this!

    3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.