I don’t quite understand this argument. It’s not like the royalty is required for that state to be valuable. You could just take it from them. It was stolen from the people originally. That huge income could go 100% to the people and the nation.
I was with you until “stolen from the people.” Monarchs back in their heyday served a purpose. It took centuries to build up nation-states and common law.
Hell, it took Germany until the late 1800s to get their shit together, and even after then, it took another 100 years still.
Yes their purpose was to take as much as they could from the populace for their own personal gains. That was their purpose. By the way it’s absurd that you sit here and talk about centuries to build up nation-states (as if thats an inherint positive) and common law as if those things weren’t built up in spite of monarchies. Usually in bloody opposition to monarchies.
I think you’ve bought into the Disney trope a bit too much, or at best viewing history from a myopic perspective.
Monarchs provided defense for their constituents, they provided city planning. Wealth extraction was an outcome, not unlike a business. Not all kings were Ivan IV’s, there are far more who served their people well who are not as infamous.
That isn’t to say I’m a monarchist, not by a long shot, just that monarchy serves its place in history.
Got to have the right location, resources, timing and motivation. It’s not like wealth falls from the sky. It’s not like workers/constituents will work for the sake of working, at least not most of them. They have to get something out of the deal.
Get some knowledge in your head, read a book. Think for yourself and stop getting your info from the Disney channel.
Yes it’s called overwhelming and brutal military force. It’s called the threat of violence. Wealth doesn’t front come from the sky it’s taken from the people through exploitation. Taken through fear. Also stop saying constituents. You mean slaves. You mean serfs. Constituent is an entirely different term than implies a measure of equality and choice. It’s really weird you’re using that term.
Also just as an aside, what’s the shit you keep talking about with Disney? Do you think Disney’s anti-monarchy? Cuz like their whole thing is pretty princesses and wonderful princes and shit. Like I have no idea where on Earth you’re going for with that one.
Damn you got this whole angry dude who puts down people and their ideas schtick down.
I already told you why. You have a very narrow, Disne-esque perception of what living under a monarchy is, and I’m telling you, often the “serfs” had more autonomy and authority than that perception.
We must not attribute a modern context to historical times. Rather, we should strive to look at history through a historical lens.
It’s the estate that makes the income though, not the family. In the UK most of that estate is owned by the position of the monarch itself rather than by the monarch; a perk of the job, not private property. In other words it’d probably still make just as much money in a republic, arguably more since we could let visitors in to see the buildings
In the UK, the Royal Estate provides the government with a huge income (even though 25 percent goes to the king so he can repair his fancy castles).
I don’t quite understand this argument. It’s not like the royalty is required for that state to be valuable. You could just take it from them. It was stolen from the people originally. That huge income could go 100% to the people and the nation.
I was with you until “stolen from the people.” Monarchs back in their heyday served a purpose. It took centuries to build up nation-states and common law.
Hell, it took Germany until the late 1800s to get their shit together, and even after then, it took another 100 years still.
Yes their purpose was to take as much as they could from the populace for their own personal gains. That was their purpose. By the way it’s absurd that you sit here and talk about centuries to build up nation-states (as if thats an inherint positive) and common law as if those things weren’t built up in spite of monarchies. Usually in bloody opposition to monarchies.
I think you’ve bought into the Disney trope a bit too much, or at best viewing history from a myopic perspective.
Monarchs provided defense for their constituents, they provided city planning. Wealth extraction was an outcome, not unlike a business. Not all kings were Ivan IV’s, there are far more who served their people well who are not as infamous.
That isn’t to say I’m a monarchist, not by a long shot, just that monarchy serves its place in history.
Wealth extraction was an just an outcome? Good lord man. That’s hilarious. No. It was the point. Rather like in business, lol.
Got to have the right location, resources, timing and motivation. It’s not like wealth falls from the sky. It’s not like workers/constituents will work for the sake of working, at least not most of them. They have to get something out of the deal.
Get some knowledge in your head, read a book. Think for yourself and stop getting your info from the Disney channel.
Yes it’s called overwhelming and brutal military force. It’s called the threat of violence. Wealth doesn’t front come from the sky it’s taken from the people through exploitation. Taken through fear. Also stop saying constituents. You mean slaves. You mean serfs. Constituent is an entirely different term than implies a measure of equality and choice. It’s really weird you’re using that term.
Also just as an aside, what’s the shit you keep talking about with Disney? Do you think Disney’s anti-monarchy? Cuz like their whole thing is pretty princesses and wonderful princes and shit. Like I have no idea where on Earth you’re going for with that one.
Damn you got this whole angry dude who puts down people and their ideas schtick down.
I already told you why. You have a very narrow, Disne-esque perception of what living under a monarchy is, and I’m telling you, often the “serfs” had more autonomy and authority than that perception.
We must not attribute a modern context to historical times. Rather, we should strive to look at history through a historical lens.
This is the best answer I think, tons of income from tourism.
Lol yeah let me go travel to see humans. But they are better than you because some slag in a lake tossed a sword?
It’s the estate that makes the income though, not the family. In the UK most of that estate is owned by the position of the monarch itself rather than by the monarch; a perk of the job, not private property. In other words it’d probably still make just as much money in a republic, arguably more since we could let visitors in to see the buildings