I guess my question is specific to the british royal family.

I saw a post online that said “God save the King” and had a photo of the king. The idea of a monarch or reverence for any other type of leader simply because they are the leader is outside of my experience.

I’m not here to disagree or argue, please don’t feel like you need to justify or convince me. I can accept that people value different things.

I would like to understand the appeal the monarchy or even specifically King Charles has for people who respect and support the monarchy.

  • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    4·
    16 days ago

    Monarchs don’t just look to the next election or next year’s economic growth.
    Their frame of reference goes back for centuries and they have a personal interest in keeping the country functional and prosperous for the next centuries.

    So as long as they don’t wield too much executive power that isn’t democratically legitimized, they can act as a counterweight to the parliament that’s often dominated by party politics.

    Edit:

    OP asks question on Ask Lemmy
    write on-topic answer
    get downvoted

    Stay classy, folks and folkettes.

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineOPEnglish
      3·
      16 days ago

      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?

      • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
        2·
        16 days ago

        I personally don’t know of any country where the royalty gets tax money directly.

        But I’m not an expert.

        They do usually own lots of land which creates income that would go to the state instead, if they abolished the monarchy and nationalized their property.

        • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineOPEnglish
          3·
          16 days ago

          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?

          • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
            3·
            16 days ago

            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.

    • Goldholz @lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      16 days ago

      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!