A conversation on TED.com: Do we really need Royal Families and their regencies? Why dont we just dismiss them?

Erol Toksoy
istanbul
Turkey

This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do we really need Royal Families and their regencies? Why dont we just dismiss them?

I was digging some research on Chavez and saw a political debate between him and Zapatero ( PM of Spain) and then suddenly the king of Spain interrupted and told Chavez to shut up just like he owns the place.

Who the hell he is? How can he talk in the name of the Prime minister of Spain? It is same in all over the world in Thailand's head of the state and head of the army salutes the king on their knees ( they dont kneel they literally walk on their knees) British royal family spends millions of pounds just for their horses every year.

Japanese Emperor is seen as semi-god by the law and when he addresses people on TV they consider it at as a great favor. Who is favoring who?

Whats wrong with these people?. We don't live in the dark ages anymore. Why don't they dismiss those thrones and let these human beings take care of themselves by simply working as we others do.

Related Talks:

Sort By:

K Kuhn
- 0
Oct 1 2011: I believe constituional monarchy is a right and a modern form of rule. People who refuse to acknowledge this are in my mind either uninformed without a sense of history (most of them) or someone, who puts too much faith in democracy.Machiavelli argued well already in 1513 for that pure kingdoms (dictatorships) did not work well, but also that pure republics (or democracies) tended to corrupt, a notion that someone modern like Mancur Olson has reinforced. Thus best to choose a mix.The Spanish king stopped a coup in 1981, the Danish King stopped the industrial Højgaard group's attempted coup. The Belgian King is the sole uniter of Belgium these days.Perhaps countries such as the United States and Côte d'Ivoire would have been in a better position in 2000, 2003 or 2010 had they had a monarch.A constitutional monarch rarely has to step into character and act, sometimes not openly for generations, which gives him the false light of being "entertainment only". But this is not the case.(of course there are - as with any system - reservations such as nothing stops a very dum or fool-hearted King from being a King)
E G 10+
- 0
Sep 25 2011: We don't need them , neither royal families nor their regencies , ''Why dont we just dismiss them?'' can we ?
Somak Mitra
- +1
Sep 20 2011: Royal families are a sense of identity for nations. Even though they are outdated they still inspire the images of eloquence and grandeur that they did in their glory days. Since we can all connect with the scale of things, the grand scale of all things royal still appeals to us, though now we can dismiss their actions as wastages of taxpayers money.
Salim Solaiman 50+
- +2
Sep 18 2011: That's one of the indicators that indicates how archaic we the mankind still is in our psyche........
- Erol Toksoy 10+
  - +1
  Sep 23 2011: I think we feel to weak inside that we still need fictional heroes to protect us.
Fábio Nunes
- 0
Sep 16 2011: In my opinion there is no reason why power should be passed through a family lineage. I am of the opinion that we should choose only the best to represent the people and there's nothing like voting to assure just that.

However, they do provide some stability to the country by establishing a connection between different governments, "assuring" that good policies are still a priority for the new government.
Debra Smith 100+
- +1
Sep 16 2011: As a Canadian, I have a Queen who does not live here, visits occasionally but is actually the figurehead leader of my country. I live in a democracy so I often wonder how democracies whose basic idea is that everyone is equal can continue with such an archaic institution as a monarchy. In addition, we are a country of immigrants from around the world and an entire second language and culture, our French Canadians, whose ancestors put a definitive end to their own monarchy long ago. We tend also to be a polite people so it is my hope that as Queen Ellizabeth ages and eventually passes away that we will finally say that the era of monarchies for Canada passed away with her.
- Erol Toksoy 10+
  - 0
  Sep 16 2011: Debra I think we both know that you will have a king instead o her when her time is up. But your country's situation is a bit different with French-Canadians presence. Lots of Turks including some of my friends immigrated to Canada. They say it is great country with or without Queen.
  - Debra Smith 100+
    
    0
    Sep 16 2011: To return the compliment, I have to tell you that my eldest son spent a year in Turkey on a Rotary exchange and loved your country's beauty, its history, its cuisine (and especially your spiky strawberries)! While I have never been to Turkey it is very high on my list of places I wish to visit. I hope you get to visit Canada too!
    
    Recent polls are indicating that more than half of Canadians can see no point in having a monarchy. Prince Charles has good qualities but he is hardly charismatic so I do have hope that we will retire the monarchy when Queen Elizabeth passes.
Maikel Andelbeek 10+
- +1
Associate

Sep 16 2011: I think they have their purpose. Look at Germany for example, they only have a "Bundeskanzler" or Prime Minister and no royal family. The PM of Germany has to travel the world and make his face known to the world in order to be taken seriously, but by the time everyone knows him his/her term is up and there might very well be another PM.

When you have a royal family (as we do in the Netherlands), then you have someone who is known by other countries and who can act as a go-between. We have laws that discern that the royal family doesn not have its own opinion in these matters and is obligated to say what the PM wants them to say. It saves a lot of time not having to travel the world and making themselves known, time they can spent trying to govern the country.
- Erol Toksoy 10+
  - 0
  Sep 16 2011: I think your royal family is the only useful one. But still it is a bit bizarre to have a royal family in order to ease governments foreign affairs.
Bob Shingles 10+
- 0
Sep 16 2011: These people play the role of figure heads just like many companies have fictional characters to represent and speak for brands.

Royal families may not serve the functional roles of the past but can still be a uniting force for a nation.
- Erol Toksoy 10+
  - 0
  Sep 16 2011: Still not fair in my book. If you will be a part without a king figure then you must fall a part.
- Matthieu Miossec 100+
  - 0
  TED Translator Associate
  
  Sep 16 2011: fictional characters don't cost nearly as much...
James Kindler 10+
- +2
Sep 16 2011: No we don't need them, they are no different than us.
Gisela McKay 30+
- 0
Sep 15 2011: I actually think it would suck to be born royal in this era.

Despite the money, you have no personal freedom and you don't get to choose your own career (plus it's pretty much irrelevant at that).

I can't imagine how bored I would be opening malls and being the equivalent of a wealthy monkey in a zoo on a day-to-day basis.
- Erol Toksoy 10+
  - 0
  Sep 16 2011: Don't show pity Gisela :) I am not sure that privacy issues and career planing is their highest concerns. They can always reject their royal duties and live as a simple person. Some members of the Scandinavian regencies already did that.
  - Gisela McKay 30+
    
    0
    Sep 16 2011: But what percentage of the population is actually strong enough to say "screw you" to what is expected of them, either by their families, or by society at large?
    
    In the end, they are just people (no matter what the "divine right" crap might say) and as such subject to the failings and foibles of any of your neighbours.
    
    I cannot imagine how much it would suck to get up each morning and know that nothing you do actually makes a difference in the grand scheme of things.
    
    But then again, that could be said for most of us, except that we at least get to choose what pointless thing we are going to do day in and out.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
- +1
TED Translator Associate

Sep 15 2011: You are absolutely right. I find it particularly nonsensical for states which aspire to be secular to have a monarchy. I have often heard British people excuse their monarchy by how much it brings them in tourism. Ignoring the fact that money should never be an excuse to uphold a system that does not make any sense, the empty castles of France bring in more tourism (they are opened all year round) and the French don't have to bear some of their taxes squandered on people who don't really do much, so the argument is invalid.
Harold Saxon
- +1
Sep 15 2011: We don't really need them. But they're fun to look at. They're sort of the face of their country, and it's been that way for quite some time. It's really just following an ancient tradition. Though I agree that they aren't really relevant in today's political climate.