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

No Stupid Questions

40697 readers
1183 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
[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In the UK, the Royal Estate provides the government with a huge income (even though 25 percent goes to the king so he can repair his fancy castles).

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't quite understand this argument. It's not like the royalty is required for that state to be valuable. You could just take it from them. It was stolen from the people originally. That huge income could go 100% to the people and the nation.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was with you until “stolen from the people.” Monarchs back in their heyday served a purpose. It took centuries to build up nation-states and common law.

Hell, it took Germany until the late 1800s to get their shit together, and even after then, it took another 100 years still.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes their purpose was to take as much as they could from the populace for their own personal gains. That was their purpose. By the way it's absurd that you sit here and talk about centuries to build up nation-states (as if thats an inherint positive) and common law as if those things weren't built up in spite of monarchies. Usually in bloody opposition to monarchies.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you’ve bought into the Disney trope a bit too much, or at best viewing history from a myopic perspective.

Monarchs provided defense for their constituents, they provided city planning. Wealth extraction was an outcome, not unlike a business. Not all kings were Ivan IV’s, there are far more who served their people well who are not as infamous.

That isn’t to say I’m a monarchist, not by a long shot, just that monarchy serves its place in history.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wealth extraction was an just an outcome? Good lord man. That's hilarious. No. It was the point. Rather like in business, lol.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Got to have the right location, resources, timing and motivation. It’s not like wealth falls from the sky. It’s not like workers/constituents will work for the sake of working, at least not most of them. They have to get something out of the deal.

Get some knowledge in your head, read a book. Think for yourself and stop getting your info from the Disney channel.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes it's called overwhelming and brutal military force. It's called the threat of violence. Wealth doesn't front come from the sky it's taken from the people through exploitation. Taken through fear. Also stop saying constituents. You mean slaves. You mean serfs. Constituent is an entirely different term than implies a measure of equality and choice. It's really weird you're using that term.

Also just as an aside, what's the shit you keep talking about with Disney? Do you think Disney's anti-monarchy? Cuz like their whole thing is pretty princesses and wonderful princes and shit. Like I have no idea where on Earth you're going for with that one.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 0 points 23 hours ago

Damn you got this whole angry dude who puts down people and their ideas schtick down.

I already told you why. You have a very narrow, Disne-esque perception of what living under a monarchy is, and I’m telling you, often the “serfs” had more autonomy and authority than that perception.

We must not attribute a modern context to historical times. Rather, we should strive to look at history through a historical lens.

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

This is the best answer I think, tons of income from tourism.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago

It's the estate that makes the income though, not the family. In the UK most of that estate is owned by the position of the monarch itself rather than by the monarch; a perk of the job, not private property. In other words it'd probably still make just as much money in a republic, arguably more since we could let visitors in to see the buildings

[–] al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 day ago

Lol yeah let me go travel to see humans. But they are better than you because some slag in a lake tossed a sword?