Who decided that they were better than everyone around them and therefore deserved a throne and to have their lives made richer by taxes paid by those around them?
What makes these people deserve the riches they have and have people bow and curtsy to them because they are descendants of the first king or queen?
It's all so ridiculous!
I am not sure if this is a serious question but every society has rulers. In primitive societies, it was rule by the military class ie hte nobility.. who made war and tried to advance the interests of their countries by fighting and making war. The families struggled among themselves for supreme power and gradually rulign became more a political matter of trying ot promote industry, to advance their interests by diplomacy and judicious marriages and to provide and enforce justice for hte oridnary people.
I dont see that the present RF (while very rich) is any less entitled to its riches than any other family which has inherited wealth such as the Vanderbilts or the Hiltons or whatever. And as at present the RF pay taxes just like everyone else, and do not expect people to bow or curtsey if they object ot the idea, I dont quite see what the objection is. Yes it is irrational, but their position is not one of power. THey do not interfere in the democratic process.. generaly speaking in the 30s, it was military and other dictators who did that while Britain remained a stable democracy...
The current royals are the vestiges of the Medieval/Renaissance beliefs about the divinely appointed monarch. Basically, those who sat at the top of the feudal system (from killing whoever was in charge before them, usually) convinced the populace that their family ruled by God's divine judgement. Due to this, fixation was placed on the royal heir, who was meant to be the continuation of God's will - people genuinely thought that the 'King' did not die - only his earthly body, whilst his 'body politic' continued through the next of his blood. Unfortunately (IMO) the idea that the head of state ought to be chosen by accident of birth persisted after the divine nature of monarchy dissipated.
Joyfarrah - yes, the Queen now pays taxes (after avoiding doing so for the first forty years of her reign following a secret agreement with Winston Churchill). I'm staggered as to why you don't think people should object to curtseying or bowing to anyone - a respectful handshake (as most heads of state would get) is sufficient IMO. As to their not meddling in politics, there is a great deal of information that they do - Prince Charles especially. In fact, it was leaked that Gordon Brown and his government received up to seven notes from Charles a day voicing his opinions/lobbying him on issues of government policy; this in turn influenced some of those policies. Alas, the nature of the letters was deemed not to be of interest to the public and suppressed by Brown. The discussions which go on during the Queen's weekly meetings with the PM are also not made public. I also rather think that Britain remained a stable democracy in the 30s not due to its royal family (some of whom openly supported Hitler) but due to its people's visible dislike and unwillingness to support the ideas of the likes of Oswald Mosely and instead elect leaders who would stop the royals interfering (Baldwin for example) and put paid to constitutional crises and dangerous factions. Stability in a democracy comes, ultimately, from the people.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Well put
shareAncient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
share