I've done some research on how monarchies began in general, and how constitutional monarchies work right now. What I don't get is what do people in "advanced" countries (e.g UK, Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, etc) think about this system? What do they think about royal families getting a hefty sum of their tax money? More importantly, why do royal families still get paid? Is it part of the law in a constitutional monarchy to do so?
The only thing that I got from my short research on the matter is that in the UK, it is mostly kept as a tourist attraction, and 'because it is part of the country's history and heritage'.
Does anyone have any ideas/explanations on why this still exists?
The justification used for the money the Royal Family receive is that they act as ambassadors for the nation and some argue that they bring in more money through tourism than they cost (although this is a contentious point as it's pretty much impossible to quantify the benefit). Some will argue in favour of the monarchy from a traditionalist viewpoint or the aforementioned financial argument and others will argue against them because they represent an outdated class system of inherent privilege or because they reject the financial argument.
Most people are fairly indifferent on the matter but it is interesting to note that Charles has a much lower public opinion than his mother, with many people wanting the line of succession to skip him completely (although this is unprecedented and would only happen if he willingly abdicated the throne upon succession). Currently there is no real push for the abolition on the monarchy and no mainstream political party would even dare mention it but if and when Charles becomes king, that could all change.
Thanks for the elaborate response!
This was really interesting idea to me, so I looked it up. The British Royal Family gets a grant from the government which was £36.1 million in 2013. As a point of reference, the total UK budget in that year was £720 billion, so that's 0.005%. Here's a more detailed article about it.
Honestly, from a financial standpoint I can't imagine doing away with the royal family given those numbers. The argument that they are a symbol of class privilege that isn't appropriate in a modern "democratic" nation seems like the only real way to attack the continued existence of a monarchy.
Norwegian here. I can't speak for all norwegians, but my feelings and thoughts on this matter align with the majority and as such I am very much in favor of constitutional monarchy.
What do they think about royal families getting a hefty sum of their tax money?
It's unproblematic. We, the people, decide how much they are paid. The royal house may send a request to the government for a raise, but some parties feel they should be paid less, while others feel they should be paid more. You can vote accordingly.
More importantly, why do royal families still get paid?
The money is meant to cover their personal expenses in regards to official tasks and ordinary maintentance of their properties. The maintenance of the court is financed separatly. Baically, they perform a number of important constitutional functions as well as serving as ambassadors. They certainly do not sit on their asses all day. Additionally they are of great value to the nations spirit and have historically been a rallying point for our people in times of conflict and during the rebuilding afterwards. They continue to fill this function, although we're generally speaking of floods and not world wars these days. The money is not meant to be a reward for this, as this is their sworn duty, but is meant to enable them to fulfill this function. Tourism is not a big factor in regards to the Royal Family of Norway.
what do people in "advanced" countries (e.g UK, Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, etc) think about this system?
I will preface by saying I am not from one of these 'advanced' countries. However I am from Australia which is considered a Constitutional Monarchy.
What do they think about royal families getting a hefty sum of their tax money?
In Australia they do not get a hefty sum of our tax money. The monarch is represented by Governors and Governor Generals and while they are funded from the public purse, that isn't really a serious concern.
More importantly, why do royal families still get paid?
The justifications include the fact that they are of historical significance, national pride, and in a number of circumstances still perform important constitutional functions.
Is it part of the law in a constitutional monarchy to do so?
Yes. In Australia the relevant section of the constitution is s.3 Quoted below:
Salary of Governor-General There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor‑General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of a Governor‑General shall not be altered during his continuance in office
Currently the Governor General gets paid about $400,000. Not sure about Governors, it would probably differ form state to state.
'because it is part of the country's history and heritage'. Does anyone have any ideas/explanations on why this still exists?
Because it's not broke, so don't fix it? If there isn't any major problems with the system then there's no need to change anything. It also represents the country's unique history and culture.
![[deleted]](https://www.redditstatic.com/shreddit/assets/snoovatar-back-64x64px.png){kind=small}
In the Netherlands, the royal house as a fairly important political and diplomatic position in addition to the ceremonial one, which has netted them both critique and respect. First of all, while the king or queen has no executive power, they do meet regularely with the prime minister. In addition to that, they have some limited influence over the formation of a new coalition after elections, although lately the parties have opted to bypass the ruler on several occasions. Most members of the royal house also regularely visit with the heads of state of other countries and during these meetings, things like business contracts and the relations between the Netherlands and those countries.
As far as cirtique goes, the main cirtique seems to be about the amount of money they get and their spending habits. Usually, their political importance is less of a talking point although there has been some critique from our ultra right wing loonies who felt left out during some of the coalition formations.
Doesn't the UK royal family also mostly make money on their land and other holdings? I.E the government rents a lot of their land from them?
Similarly, I also wonder why in this day and age we have representative democracies. It's quite passe if you think about it.
... Because it is part of the countries' history and heritage.