rainbowcrab95772
20973
536
34
Jul 30, 2026 4:38 PM
rainbowcrab95772
20973
536
34
Munchman347
The US just lost one of it's biggest Queens, Lindsey will not be missed, just like Chucky Kirk...
SpecialContainmentProcedures
Yes royals are an anachronism... but I'm lovin' Norway's style.
nikinnorway12
I mean, Prince Haakon is only 53. it's gonna be a while until she becomes queen of Norway.
BrusselSpout
For some reason, ppl elevate a chosen few to grow up entitled, expect to be waited on 24/7, bowed to, and called “your highness.” Jewels, crowns, and medals are needed to support their fictitious claim of supremacy. Watch any clip of Charles (England) arrogantly berating his servants and you’ll want to hurl.
lonelyrangerofthedreams
Great.
What’s for dinner?
KarmaciouS
Christine Lagarde and Ursula Von Der Leyen are proof that if you give power to the wrong women you have the same result as giving power to the wrong men.
So should we expect anything from "royal" folks that inherit power wihtout being elected by people?
FalafelWithAngeldust
You have a pretty wrong understanding of what a Constitutional Monarch actually is if you talk about them being given any "power". They're whole point is that they aren't allowed to wield any power ever. Also there are far FAR worse examples you could have picked, Marine Le Pen, Alice Weidel, Giorgia Meloni, Keiko Fujimori, Dóra Dúró, etc.
InitHello
Mette-Marit of Norway is not in the line of succession for the throne. The other four mentioned here are, though.
FPAlpha
All completely useless people with mostly no real function just living off their inheritance and taxpayer money.
CorgisButtsDriveMeNuts
All the so called "royal families" can fuck off, regardless of who's on the throne at the time, or where they come from.
misterCT
Fuck monarchs
Racealistic
As a Dutchman i think the monarchies should be abolished. Damn "royal" family is eating up free tax payer money and buying 30 vacation homes in different countries. It's unnecessary and stupid AF.
leviking
Denmark had a great queen for a long time. Now we have a king. I don't care what their gender is, as long as they represent Denmark good.
leviking
Sorry. I'm too lazy to rephrase that goodly.
JenkinsEar
And they're all babes.
KaijuMcCitysmash
How about we abolish all that shit and live in the 21st century?
VinchVolt
one of the biggest arguments in favor of constitutional monarchy is that the royals act as a buffer against extremist forces, an idea that almost instantly falls apart when you examine the fact that italy never abolished its own monarchy under mussolini, and in fact their king actively allowed him to remain dictator for 21 years, only firing him once italy itself got invaded by the allies.
VinchVolt
oh, and let's also not forget the fact that the norwegian royal family is in the epstein files. their crown princess befriended epstein AFTER he was convicted of being a child predator, not to mention that her son's a convicted rapist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Mette-Marit,_Crown_Princess_of_Norway,_and_Jeffrey_Epstein
bippityboppitybuttsex
My Subway Take is that there should be zero kings or queens or anyone with a title of nobility that is above the law.
If you want to call yourself 'Queen' but are still subject to the laws that everyone else is subject to, then fine... but the premise of a legally protected class is obscene.
Bladedrummer
Maybe they'll finally abolish this ridiculousness.
TCooley79
I wonder if she’s single… 🇳🇴
MrFancyPanzer
Yass queen
kyleesha
No one actually cares about royalty. It's just a silly little antiquated thing that, like it's kin, is a useless tradition doomed to die from no one giving a damn.
bippityboppitybuttsex
But they have real legal immunity from the law... if it were just some rich people calling themselves shit, no one would care.
King Charles III could literally go rape a baby and then eat it on live television and there is no legal authority in all of the UK that could touch him.
JayDeeDubs
In at least most of these countries their monarchies are actually reasonably popular. That's the only reason they still exist
2fligh2high
I care, costs a shitload of money. And it’s far from gone where I live
CaldariBob
Not at all! Royalty has made a comeback in the US and they seem pretty comfortable with it!
hufflesnuff
Fuck crowns. Fuck nobles. Fuck lords. No masters. Just free and equal citizens under the law.
The Famine Queen tried to exterminate the Irish and depopulate India. Power corrupts. Strip them of it.
whoatherebigfella
We are in the 21st century now, how about you?
hufflesnuff
Me too. MBS sucks. MBZ sucks. The Windsors are nonces. Should have been rid of this gilded crap centuries ago.
ElroydIsGone
I take any european reality TV telenovela style royal family over the real brutal autocrats like MbS and MbZ. These latter guys are really power drunken degenerate fuckheads.
hufflesnuff
Ask Australia what happened to its elected government in 1975.
The greatest trick modern monarchs ever pulled was convincing you they are powerless figureheads.
JohnBluehill
Dismissed and an election was then held. That's how a parliamentary system works. This could have happened in any country where the head of state has the legal ability to dissolve the sitting government, and it doesn't require a monarch to do so.
Could have easily been a President... Look at Barbados. They have an elected president now, as a parliamentary republic.
fformulaa
They look like cousins and sisters
Niagaran
They're probably inbred enough to be sister-cousins
fformulaa
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dnl5MDVydGw5ZnJ6ZzVvOGkxbmI3aXM2dzJ6NGRhejZucXpicmttNyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/nZymwrrw9PjDa/200w.webp
Schaade
We'll know if another world war breaks out.
GetMeAReubenSandwich
Probably are...European royalty always "Kept it in the Family" to protect money and power.
ElroydIsGone
I think all European aristocrats are cousins to each other one way or the other. In WW I the country that was ruled by the house of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha fought against Germany, but since this looked a bit weird, they renamed themselves to Windsor.
sneakypoo
Yes, it sure is very modern to have monarchies.
layinginbedfeelinglikeaquesarito
It works better than the other stems because the people a the top have to give back to justify the pretend we all gov them
kleinbotl
monarchies NUTS! hmm, that worked better in my head
NotAGarbageCant
I still appreciate it!
2fligh2high
rulek
I used to be against them, but over the last decade they have become the most sane and stable voice in politics. (At least in Belgium) In the way we have them now, They provide unity, stability and continuity without having any power.
CarlBassett
I suspect having the elected leader, with the actual power, have to meet the royal head of state every week reminds them they are "just" the elected leader and prevents them getting carried away with power. And it is easier to criticise them and hold them to account because you are not criticising the head of state so you don't feel you are criticising the country.
Magjee
Shit, we said NO KINGS, but forgot about the Queens
Picoshi
They have pretty much no real governmental powers, it's like the Finnish president, mostly a liaison or a poster person for the government and people.
CarlBassett
In is interesting that of the countries often rated best for things like happiness, freedom, democracy etc a LOT are Constitutional Monarchies. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the UK etc all constitutional monarchies. Maybe having a head of state totally outside politics makes it easier to hold elected leaders to account and stops them getting power crazy? Monarchies highlighted on the right.
CarlBassett
Monarchies again highlighted.
CarlBassett
FrancsTireur
To be honest when you compare the situation in the US to Europe...
It took you guys less than a century to develop a nobility based on wealth and resource hoarding without titles and then they caused a civil war.
It took you less than 50 years after that to develop a different class of nobility based on wealth and resource hoarding which led directly to the normalisation of exploitation of all races and creeds.
And it took you less than 50 years after that to transition to full blown 1/
sneakypoo
If by "you guys" you're implying that I'm from the US, you would be mistaken. My home country is represented in the picture actually.
FrancsTireur
Hope for your sake its not the middle one she looks less like she'd tell you to eat cake and more like she'd insist on you having a low carb low sugar diet consisting of kale and seaweed smoothies.
Pluppokopter
Kings have died in sweden by eating too many pastries, and the princess cake comes from sweden. She just exercise a lot ^_^
FrancsTireur
I mean, what good is being king if you cant die from eating too many pastries, that truly is a kingly way to go.
FrancsTireur
Economic imperialists and financial fascism, effectively destroying the idea of America as a nation because your pursuit and embrace of limitless capitalism ultimately leads to these individuals having interests broader than the interests of a single country and therefore their loyalty can no longer be relied upon in times of peril.
I like our model better.
There's a dignity to our royal families that American financial royals lack. 2
PatrickDenStore
I prefer our Swedish one over the US one because their king is insane and actually has power to enact his insanity.
yamsonyamsonyams
Yes democracy doesnt work so we should go back to kings Im case one of them has a chill daughter who can rule over us someday
PatrickDenStore
Apparently you can't read...
yamsonyamsonyams
I can read just fine. America has no kings, Sweden does. You think kings are good.
PatrickDenStore
America has a King, he has full immunity and his will be done. He may not be called a King but that is what he is. I prefer our system where the King has no power what so ever over the American system where the King's power is absolute and all encompassing regardless if it's ordering the murder of Americans or starting illegal wars for no fucking reason.
sneakypoo
That is true, I'll take Knugen over the mad king any day.
Malak224
Where is Jamie Lannister when you need him?
clonedeeznuts
He doesn't really have the power either but we have racist judges in the highest court that's easily bribed and 2 parties connected to the same body.
TripleDane
Poppypoppoppop
Meanwhile, Japan
Bardcrest
@OP, Freddie Mercury was born on September 5, 1946. the hell are you talking about? Europe already had it's biggest queen!
Whoisthisdoctorwho2000
Meh, strong voice, mid talent in one if the dorkiest bands in the 80s
solrev
salunatics
solrev
Borrowing that. +1
Bubble181
Freddie Mercury is from Zanzibar. Last I checked, that wasn't in Europe
CarbyD
He's a Zanzibarbarian!
TheRealCrimesJohnson
It was a British protectorate until 1963, so I think he slips in on a technicality
RedTailedHawk
Zanizbar was part of the british empire at the time, he's british.
TheLastBootyBender
What country (or at least the land it now exists on) wasn't a part of the British empire at some point
tinybartender
Once upon a time, there was a saying: "The sun never sets on the British Empire."
DoctorWookie
Sweden, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia and Guatemala to name a few.
ThisIsYourLifeNow
France
Bubble181
Most of France (all of the west and south, most of the north) was reigned by the king of England at some point during the 100 year war.
ProcrastinatingWork
That might be an interesting factoid however, Queen the band is from England. They are an English band. Their tours were primarily UK and Europe and USA
Bubble181
Sure. But the post I was replying to was saying Freddie was the greatest queen, not that Queen was the greatest queen. At least that's how I interpret it.
Septcanmat
What sort of person do you think exists that knows that Freddie Mercury is from Zanzibar but doesn’t know that Queen was a British rock band?
gayvillian
Most of these countries changed their laws recently (in terms of history of the throne) to allow women to become queen. See Japan and their debate when they lacked a male heir. (One was born so they pretty much dropped it).
kleinbotl
It's probably for the good of everyone that Japan didn't have a succession crisis. Sengoku Jidai with automatic firearms would be... bad...
creepwood
The swedish crown princess was not born a crown princess (1977), they changed the law after the crown prince (1979) was born.
DocFunkenstein
It's hilarious that all those countries (including the UK) basically just pay obscene amounts of tax money to a family just to be a glorified tourist attraction.
FalafelWithAngeldust
You do realise that happens in Parliamentary Republics as well? Often in total a lot more taxpayer money gets spent on a county's respective Mascot, the only difference being that they call themselves "President" instead instead of "King".
torbtom
For some perspective, the total annual costs for the Scandinavian royal houses are in the range 15-20% of the annual tax payer cost of Trump’s golf visits. Most of which goes to maintain castles, boats etc, which wouldn’t disappear if monarchy would be abolished.
HamSlamwich
For some perspective: if a bar is low enough, it's not really a flex to be above it.
2fligh2high
And people adore them, they need to be ruled. Crazy!
v
welluhwhatdoyouwantmetosay
I would say that very few tourists go to see monarchs, and plenty would still go to see the castles if they weren't there.
CarlBassett
It isn't the UK that is spending $6 billion on two new luxury planes for its head of state..... The cost of running the British Royal Family is almost certainly far less than the US spends on the President. And the President of France doesn't exactly live in a condo and fly economy.
Shestolemybeer
If you don't have a monarch who goes on your money? A regular person? Preposterous.
rolliefingers
Those funds maintain vital national heritage, historic buildings, and drive global tourism, and the Crown Estate actually generates more revenue for the UK Treasury than the royals receive back.
DocFunkenstein
k.
nclu
The monarchy also happens to be the single largest recipient of agricultural subsidies.
BrdCdn
No one comes to visit to see the living royals. You could kick them out and still make the money off the crown estate. People are coming to see Buckingham palace. Not whatever random rural farm they own. It's a lie they make the state money.
ghornby
Yes, Queens have never ruled with violence or oppressed their subjects. This will surely solve all the issues with monarchy. Whew, glad that’s over.
Mary I, England
Catherine de Medici, France
Elizabeth Bathory, Hungary
Queen Christina, Denmark
Isabella I, Spain
Maria I, Portugal
Niagaran
what's that saying about absolute power?
Stanistani
Catherine the Great and Queen Elizabeth I would be the best examples, IMHO.
VegaJuniper
Elizabeth Bathory was not a queen.
ghornby
You are technically correct. (the best kind of correct!)
She was in fact a countess, but she was the ruler of Transylvania and functioned as the proxy regent to her uncle, the King of Poland.
I don’t believe that particular idiosyncrasy detracts from my point that the unchallenged accumulation of power is quite capable of corruption regardless of the gender of the one that wields that power.
GetMeAReubenSandwich
These women (or those expected to become queens) would almost certainly reign as constitutional monarchs, not governing rulers. So, if all five eventually become queens, they would each be heads of state, but none would function as heads of government. The day-to-day governing of Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden would continue to rest with elected parliaments and prime ministers. They have no real power.
RXJ235231
You might want to check their constitutions before saying that. I believe at least one of these countries allows the monarch to become a ruling body of power under certain circumstances.
Vempire
I'm guessing they do have unjustifiable wealth though, and there is no fucking reason that it shouldn't go back to the people.
redtruck
Which people? The colonies or citizens of each country?
Vempire
Either, or both. In either case, the wealth would do much greater good being allocated amongst many rather than sitting and disproportionally accumulating under one or a few people's control, especially when that wealth was acquired in large part because of their assertion of divine right, through unjust military conquest, hereditary succession, etc.
redtruck
That would be a mammoth size lawsuit.
Vempire
It would, and the final calculation still wouldn't likely be accurate as you are having to account for so much history. It would be a very messy affair. But I'm speaking ideally, of course. This is what I believe should happen, as I believe monarchies and monarchs have no place here.
Jordan7831
Yep. They have no real power. As should every monarchy.
yourlostcarkey
By golly, you are correct!
Niagaran
if they have no real power, remove them. Abolish every fucking monarchy
RonnieHenriksen
I do understand that people have this fetish with exclaiming "hurrdurr abolish the royal families "
But it makes no sense to do so in the cases this post is about.
The Danish royal family, does a lot for the people, yes, including being a figurehead.
They also do ceremonies, host foreign diplomats, (largely) embody the spirit of the nation.
Sure, we wouldn't die without them, but a key argument tends to be "They get tax money for being born royalty", which is true.
But 1/2
RonnieHenriksen
2/2
But they also generate many many times more in tourist income for the country.
So the money argument is largely invalid.
I would also say that a lot of the money they receive would be spent on the same thing they spend it on.
Maintaining cultural treasures, which happens to be a lot.of castles among other things.
That is not cheap, and a significant part of the annual sum given to the monarch and his family, is spent on that.
andexer
They may have soft power to set the tone of governance, and the tone of political rhetoric
InitHello
They absolutely do. Mette-Marit's son from a previous relationship got a sweeter deal from our justice system than a "normal" convict after being convicted of rape and other evils. Mind you, justice in Norway is much more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.
GetMeAReubenSandwich
Explain to me how looking pretty at a public event is soft power...
RecurringNightmare
they might have vetoing power on new legislature or other powers still...also in some countries the monarch still has supreme executive power but just doesnt use it and allows the elected officials to do as they like under the premise that they dont stir up shit, if they ever go crazy that could then quickly change...
andexer
Force, or threat of force, is not the only kind of power. Muse on that, then think about other ways you'd get someone to agree with you or do as you say without force or threat.
GetMeAReubenSandwich
Sarcasm. Relax.
screachinghawk0
Okay but what if there was just no royalty
WaxedApple
Why do you hate women?
UnprunedSynapses
Royalty always felt like extra shiny slavery to me. Born with no right to your body or future without a lot of effort for liberation.
Silent1fd
Because "democracy" is working so much better for the U.S.
creepwood
Two-party state is just one party away from being a one-party state. The US is defined as a flawed democracy
Silent1fd
Its just one party essentially just the elites as long as they can be bribed
raitchison
These are all constitutional monarchies where the monarch is just a figurehead, the institution of the monarchy (in it's current form) is broadly popular in all these countries. The monarchy is probably least popular in Belgium but even there a 2023 poll showed 57% of people supported the monarchy with just 28% supporting a republic, with significant regional differences.
https://en.yenisafak.com/turkiye/majority-of-belgians-want-to-keep-monarchy-survey-3667106
rulek
The Belgium king is doing fine, much better than his predecessor.
Speaker2Animals
Stupid Flanders!!
SteveTheEgg
Okay, now explain to me where the monarchs get their money. I might have it wrong.
Picoshi
Old money. Governments do give some modest amount to them for day to dailies but like these people are poor compared to musk's and bezos etc
BrandtsBuijs
The monarchy is what’s keeping the whole of Belgium together
bippityboppitybuttsex
Does that 'figurehead' have to follow the same laws as everyone else in the country? Or are they immune from those laws?
Cuz if they have a license to crime, then they should also not be protected by the law.
nemocares
Well, you can compare and contrast Høiby with Trump.
Trunkmonkay
You're getting down voted but at least one of these countries has a monarchy who receives special tax privileges, and leases property to the government at incredibly inflated prices to fund their lifestyles.
Broad popularity is not a reason to have government mandated oligarchs who provide marginal tourism revenue. Keep in mind at least two royalty from two different euro nations were involved with Jeffery Epstein.
It is insane to defend royalty in year of our Lord two thousand twenty six.
bippityboppitybuttsex
Yep... I find it weird that people assume I support the orange pedophile since I am attacking people who are above the law.
Zero people, anywhere in any country, should be above the law.
PatrickDenStore
Are you asking if they're like the King of America? Nah, they have no power and they are subject to international law, something the King of America obviously isn't. They do have the same immunity as the King of America when it comes to national laws though.
bippityboppitybuttsex
I am saying that King Charles III could rape and eat a baby on tv and no one could arrest him in the UK.
If King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden murdered a child on tv, no one could arrest him in Sweden.
Under the current monstrosity of US law, only official acts by the president are protected (e.g. bombing kids in Iran, but if he took one of those kids and murdered it on TV, he would not have immunity, but I am sure Republicans would defend the act).
Bubble181
At least for Belgium, not true. He has immunity, but it's conditional and can be revoked by parliament if his deeds are considered heinous enough. Our king could for sure drive drunk without getting a ticket, but he wouldn't get away with half of what Big T has done/said. He also has barely any power.
PatrickDenStore
If you want to know my honest opinion on the matter I think immunity is a disgrace but it's one of those things that are not a problem and if it ever becomes a problem we'll deal with it. We're pragmatists over all else.
raitchison
Interesting hypothetical scenarios.
Meanwhile Trump has actually broken numerous laws with impunity.
PatrickDenStore
Well if it's an official act, and all acts are PRESUMED OFFICIAL, he could do that as well. However there is a MASSIVE difference, Carl wouldn't. In fact he wouldn't commit any crime what so ever because he knows as well as we all do that his immunity would end if he did.