This conversation is closed.

Why Do We Still Have Monarchy?

In most cultures, monarchy are a product of a more medieval, feudal times. Some cultures even come up with divine origins to support their kings and emperors. Not all royal families are bad, though. The British and the Japanese monarchy actually bring in revenue for their own country in a form of tourist attraction.

But what of the other monarchy that essentially lives off the money of the common people? What's more, these royal families are all religious. They all believe that we're all descendants of Adam.

By that logic, shouldn't we all have the same blood in all of us? Aren't we all human beings? Why are these people claiming that their blood is more noble, that everyone else is inferior? How can we even allow that?

  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: Very few are active in the running of the country they reside in ... figureheads.

    I might ask the follow on question ... do we in the "modern world" develop the new monarchy. As a example: In the USA the elected officials in Washington have become the elite, providing themselves with pay raises, perks, and exemption from the laws, in other socialists countries the political leaders have perks far above the citizens, the only difference is that none of these claim a birth or blood right ... they just think they are better than all the rest.

    Monarchy ... elite .... political leadership ... uber wealthy .... CEOs ... what is the real difference when someone for any reason sets themselves above all of the rest and it is accepted by the "lower" class.

    The answer to your question is .... Guess what .... WE allow it. A rose by any other name ... etc ...

    Be well. Bob.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2013: I'm totally agree with your points. The distinction in our communities was the product of our own craft. As long as the public keeps on embracing the "caste" level, the monarchy, elite etc. group will survive.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2013: I'm English and in favour of the British monarchy. They are ordinary people who by birth are "forced" into a difficult role and have to make the most of it, and live all their successes and failures in the public limelight, with the media and others sniping at them all the time. I would not want to have been born into such a life.
    For those who think that the monarchy costs the taxpayer a lot of money, add up the cost of any figurehead president and the rising echelon of elite plutocrats.
  • Sep 25 2013: So you accept monarchs when they can function as a revenue raiser? A bit like speed cameras ... The British monarchs also lay claim to their divine approval.
  • Oct 3 2013: a Monarch has its purpose in the old days. They were the head of the social structure and organization that manages a large group of people or even a country. Things have changed now, but some societies prefer the existence of a monarch for nostalgic purposes and pride (even revenue as you mentioned it). This is a choice of the society that perfers to keep its monarch. Let us not question these societies because their social structure requires a monarch unless of course they decided to remove it completely as what happened in France and Nepal.

    Very few monarchs actually claim "noble blood"or superior blood etc..... these kings know that they are in a precarious state because they know the country can work without a king at the helm. Therefore these "kings" are trying to balance their power while getting the people's respect. Otherwise they are inviting a revolution to get rid of them.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2013: The other day my son who is now 9 asked me whether countries with monarchs are in the time of BC ( Before Christ ) ? It was difficult for me to answer as was not sure about his understanding of sociology or politics.
  • Sep 26 2013: As to some of them Why would you want to get rid of the monarch? Others the situation is different. In other words D E P E N D S
  • Sep 25 2013: You still have a monarchy because you don't need one.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2013: monarchy can not exists without people.. if it is still there that because people wants this, it is accepted, it is granted... otherwise revolution comes to end monarchy ! :)
  • Sep 25 2013: First of all, I am sure that the Japanese Emperor doesn't think that he is a descendent of Adam and Eve. The Japanese believe that he is a direct descendent of a "god" of an Oriental nature.
    Secondly, there are a number of "leaders', such as Kim Jun Eun of North Korea, who probably costs his country twice or more than the cost of maintenance of many monarchies in the world. So, in a fairness point of view, if we have to ALLOW such dictator like Kim, who is being supported by fewer citizens than the size of the majority of the populace of other monarchies in the world, then why the outrage?
    • Sep 25 2013: Though I like your comment about the Japanese emperor, you are definitely wrong about the size of countries run by monarchs: the Holt See (Vatican), Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Tonga ..... the list is quite long.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2013: I think because people have got used to it and they are somewhat nostalgic.
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2013: the logic behind and sort of ruling is this: there is a cost for the ruled of accepting being ruled, and there is a cost of defying the ruler. if the ruler manages to make the former cost lower, he can keep his seat (or throne). all else is just whitewashing.
  • Sep 24 2013: Its more a matter of tradition than pragmatism. I'm sure that if they were all that expensive to upkeep, they'd have been abolished long ago.

    Your average modern monarch also has the good sense to do everything in his power to avoid being elevated above the common man; a lot of them even hold a job. They know their role is expendable, so they watch themselves.

    The bigger problem is all those monarchs across the globe that still hold practical power. There are more of those than you'd think.
    • Sep 25 2013: Can you name the ones who hold normal jobs?
      • Sep 25 2013: My own country doesn't have a monarchy, and I'm not to up to date on foreign ones, but I recall the one that recently had a kid (the UK's Prince William I think) was in the military.

        It doesn't really matter all that much though.
        Whats the impact of a royal family of 20-30 people max not having a job on a modern economy? Completely negligible. Their upkeep is the important part, not their income.

        A monarchy is a cultural symbol that happens to be a group of people as opposed to a location or a monument. As long as they don't hold practical power, and don't cost too much money, who cares?