That person may be from a culture with no monarchy. As an American I find the whole process and institution disgusting (yes, before you type out a clever reply, I know we have our own problems and I also probably find those disgusting). So many resources dedicated to one family with no real functional role and not even a veneer of merit…

I think part of it is that culturally the British monarchy is the most relevant in the English speaking world, so it’s just considered a bigger deal than if the Swedish monarch died. It gets TV time even in other countries. But yes, it does also expose a huge amount of excess and brings to light a lot of lesser known aspects of the monarchy.

The constant drumbeat in the news media of the royal family's dedication to "service". How is gorging on the public's teat while maintaining a $25 billion family "business" that is exempt from UK inheritance taxes in any way, shape or form consistent with liberal democracy?

Same tactic as the robber barons both new and old. Steal so much that giving away a fraction of it makes you seem like a saint. At least industrialists and (most) tech billionaires contributed something. A hereditary, neutered monarchy doesn’t contribute much at all beyond gossip and spectacle

Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat" https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 it's pretty much plain inheritance. In fact even more restricted because much of the royal family holdings cannot be sold and must be passed down.

Sure, it's a bloody violent history of kings and empires that got them there but the same could be said for much of the modern world. Is America going to hand back ALL land to Native Americans? Will individual tribes hand land back over to the tribes to originally inherited it before historical conquests? Etc. It's a more complex issue than first appears with history so long that it's almost impossible to track who is owed what.

> Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat"

Hmm. Charles will be paying zero inheritance tax on his multi-million inheritance.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles...

Oh yeah for sure. They don't _have_ to pay taxes, that's codified legally. QEII paid income and other taxes by personal choice, but they're not bound to.

Whether that's fair or not/applicable in the modern world is totally a discussion to be had by the public. Though perhaps the monarchy being so up-front and visible contributes to this.

Meanwhile companies sit in Ireland/Malta/Switzerland/etc and go on tax dodge binges and the public don't bat an eye. People seem to have a very short memory/modern world is so complicated we have to resort to apathy to handle it; remember the Panama papers? Was anything _really_ done about those?

I agree that we should also strip the Kardashians of their legal authority over the nation as a whole

You have a point. OP probably doesn’t think twice about letting pop culture exert its authority but balks at a culture that seems from another age. A little more perspective is needed here.

If OP is me, then errrrm... no :)

There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.

Realistically speaking, if it weren't the monarchs wasting tabeloid inches it would be the equally inane antics of Hollywood celebrities. It's good for the UK to have homegrown entertainment, and nice that it has a historical foundation, rather than the vapidness that is lowbrow entertainment elsewhere.

Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.

> In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.

This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.

To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.

I would think that the French have better food

Huh? Who "has their music"? Why censor?

If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.

It's a line by Joe Pesci in the movie The Good Shepherd. Not that it justifies anything.

I am entertained that your complaint is about the media instead of the ridiculousness of the UK having a royal family in 2022.

Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.

Because you do not understand it does not mean you can call it “ridiculous”. It’s insulting to brits who have been very attached to their queen for decades (and maybe before that as well). Lots of people do not understand it, that’s ok, and you can say as much.

So, Stockholm syndrome?

Calling patriotism ridiculous is insulting to Trump supporters. Doesn't mean we don't have the right to express that opinion.

Maybe a public conversation about extreme privilege which is backed by the military, the police, the media, and politicians of all stripes. Throw in a discussion about who owns "public" spaces and the laws governing how many people can gather there to do what.

For starters :)