this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
151 points (96.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40697 readers
951 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I mean, just declare a republic ffs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Knuschberkeks@leminal.space 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it's difficult to calculate, but if you factor in the amount of tourism money the british monarchy generates it's probably a net profit.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Still not convinced that the tourists wouldn't come anymore if you depower the monarchs and keep the palaces etc. as state-owned tourist attractions, TBH.

[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Didn't you hear all of the old palaces on France have had zero visitors since they packed away the guillotines

Just in case it's. Ot obvious /s

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the "it drives tourism" angle is extremely disingenuous and really doesn't play. Certainly not for the other constitutional monarchies.

I also think the cost argument itself is pretty disingenuous, though. It's not like an elected head of state is free. Especially not if you factor in the cost of running elections and campaigns for the position.

Both things ultimately go to the same point: figurehead is a figurehead. If having a figurehead shuts down traditionalist bullcrap elsewhere I am more willing to make concessions there than on actual policy. You want your mid-skill diplomats to be elected by having sex with each other? Weird kink, but there are higher priorities and it's a good a reason as any to have a chauvinistic parade every so often. Which is to say not very, but again, you do you.

Chew toys.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don't need a popular election to elect a state figurehead, Germany just has it done by existing parliaments. And figureheads who aren't monarchs don't usually have vast landholdings like most monarchs do.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

I don't know about "most monarchs". This wole thread is fairly anglocentric, it seems. It makes sense for the holdings of the crown to be public property. That's a more than reasonable middle ground, especially if the royal family is on a salary.

German's anomaly aside, Presidents tend to have at least some political power, rather than be just a figurehead. I would question the value of an entirely ceremonial head of state who is not a monarch. Why not get rid of the role entirely at that point, if you're going to keep a fully parliamentarian system with executive power consolidated in a PM? I mean, if you're planning to have an entirely useless position why take the chew toy away from the dogs? At least keep them entertained.