Monarchists: can you explain the appeal?

It's interesting to read this perspective. In the west, MBS is probably best known for butchering journalists.

Thank you, this makes sense. I can understand loyalty to a station as symbolic of loyalty to a nation and the sense of belonging that brings.

Glad you are feeling better.

Thank you for your response! I can understand the appeal of a powerful person who uses that power to protect you.

So.. this version of the Saudi Royal Family is swining this way. Other versions of the royal family have not.

Though for that long term ruling-long term thinking, and only out for next election. It doesnt need monarchy.

May i introduce you the venetian republic!

With a monarchy, you don't have 4 year cycles. The leadership lasts much longer than that.

Once the safeguard is in place for long enough that it becomes the norm, it becomes harder to reverse.

There's a LOT of possible problems with a monarchy, but the biggest advantage is much longer leadership cycles reducing the whiplash of policy change.

Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you. The appeal of stability makes sense.

I really hope this doesn't sound like arguing, but you mention "they have a personal interest in keeping the country functional and prosperous for the next centuries". That made me think of places or eras where they got taxes or "rent" from the citizens. I guess this means the citizens accept this as the price?

Breaking enough windows will also create jobs. You can create so much value with just a couple rocks!

I'm from the UK and I'm a Monarchist in so much as I want to keep the Royal Family. I certainly don't like the idea of Kings and Queens broadly speaking and "respect" is a strong word, but here in the UK we've got a lot of institutions that have vile histories but wouldn't serve to benefit anyone if we were to scrap them today.

The Mountbatten-Windsor family also happen to be the Royal Family. These days they're basically powerless and have less influence and sway than pundits on GB News, the Murdoch media and Facebook, who also aren't elected. But they're still an aristocratic family, which means they have access to extraordinary wealth and control of a vast business empire... except they don't. All their estates, land, businesses, interests, etc are held in reserve as the Crown Estate which is operated on their behalf by a Government-appointed manager. The income from the Crown Estate goes straight to the Government and the Government pays the Royal Family a salary - the Sovereign Grant - which is typically between 25% and 35% of the Crown Estate's profits. So for all those people who say "ThEy'Re TaX dOdGiNg PaRaSiTeS": they pay an effective tax rate of at least 60%, which is about 60% more than anyone else with that income. Anyone who moans about the couple of quid a year the Royal Family "costs" them must be ecstatic beyond words to learn about the few extra quid they actually make in profit.

Having a Royal Family is amazing for tourism. Yes, the French have palaces too, but they attract nothing like the numbers as the actual real, functioning palaces and castles actually used by a real, breathing monarchs. The Palace of Versailles makes Buckingham Palace look like a shanty but can you guess which one nets more visitors? Windsor Castle, same deal. Moreover, they're an amazing soft political power. What would your response be if you found out the Prime Minister of the UK was visiting your country? For most people it'd probably be "oh, who is it this week?". But what about a visit from the Actual King of England? There would be grand receptions, concerts, speeches, unveilings, all because the Actual King of Actual England is coming. Add demagogues like Trump to the equation and the Royal's value is amplified further.

Then there's the scrutiny. We all know the Andrew Formally Known As Prince being a nasty little pervert and I wouldn't be surprised if there's far more to it. And yet, no-one talks about the Dysons, or the Cavendish-es, or the Rothschilds, or the Montagus, and so on, all of whom are richer and more powerful than the Mountbatten-Windsors and far, far, far more sinister and vile, but they're not the Royal Family so they're unknowns. They make the Royals look like cherubs, but they're well-connected enough to avoid scrutiny and smart enough to remain basically anonymous. Personally, if I was the King I'd tell the UK to fuck off. I'd make the UK a Republic, take my estates and wealth and power back, thankyou very much, and tell everyone to go suck their Mum's dicks. I don't know why or how they continue being the Royal Family, but if we "got rid" of them tomorrow we'd lose a tremendous political power and gain yet another unaccountable group of unjustifiably powerful aristocrats.

Are you saying the UEL are pro British monarchy and anti Canadian government? I would consider pro Canada+ pro commonwealth + pro monarchy people to be monarchists as well...but like at a distance if that makes sense? The monarchy seems abstract in Canada.

Would it be fair to say that the income they have from their position (i.e income from land) is seen as fairly derived and a fair amount?

I wouldn't call it fairly derived.
It's all inherited from people who have stolen the land by pointing sharp sticks at its former owners.
Some Brits say it's a fair amount, since supposedly the monarchy draws in more money from tourism than it costs.

No idea, really. In Germany we abolished the monarchy but let them keep their lands, so we have the worst of both worlds.
And it's even worse with the church: Their real estate was nationalized in 1803, and the state agreed to pay reparations for it, perpetually. So now they get hundreds of millions of € per year from the state, and that's been going on for 223 years with no end in sight.

Thank you for your detailed reply! Some of what you said didn't match my understanding. I recognize I'm taking this from wiki vs your experience as a person from the UK, but maybe you can help me understand?

But they're still an aristocratic family, which means they have access to extraordinary wealth and control of a vast business empire... except they don't. All their estates, land, businesses, interests, etc are held in reserve as the Crown Estate which is operated on their behalf by a Government-appointed manager. The income from the Crown Estate goes straight to the Government and the Government pays the Royal Family a salary - the Sovereign Grant - which is typically between 25% and 35% of the Crown Estate's profits.

I don't think this is true. For example:
- they own private residences
- some of the privately owned residences are maintained by a self sustaining not for profit which means admission costs etc pay for the upkeep of these private properties.
- the holdings of the Crown Estate are massive, but the intent of the money is to cover the cost of being a royal.
- "In addition to the Sovereign Grant, the monarch continues to receive the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster, while the Prince of Wales receives the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall."
- they have private wealth

"ThEy'Re TaX dOdGiNg PaRaSiTeS": they pay an effective tax rate of at least 60%, which is about 60% more than anyone else with that income.

This article says the crown is tax exempt and that the dutchy of Cornwall claims this too. It states the Sovereign Grant is tax exempt, but individuals have voluntarily paid equivalent amounts.

Royal.UK says:

Taxation

The King pays tax.

In 1992, Queen Elizabeth II volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 the Monarch's personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer.

His Majesty is subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis.

And

Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).

The 2024-2025 financial statement mentions that

> In addition to the funding received by the Royal
Household, income from the Duchy of Cornwall funds the private and official expenditure of the Prince and Princess of Wales and is taxed to the extent it is not used to meet official expenditure.

But the above states that this is voluntary. I'm not seeing anything about the 60% effective tax rate. What am I missing?

I'm Norwegian, not British, but we also have a constitutional monarchy. I like it for mostly cynical reasons. They take care of ribbon-cutting and other big ceremonies so the politicians can focus on policy, and they give us a "head of state" that's statistically less likely to become a dictator than an elected president is.

And all the drama and bullshit is a continuous reminder of what a bad idea it would be to institute genuine monarchy.