What is the origin of 'Royal' Families ?

Question

I think 'Royal Families' are absurd, undemocratic, ridiculous etc etc. The idea that a family can be royal and that their successors can reign viewing the vast majority of other people as their 'subjects' (even if those successors are idiots) is absurd. So the basic question is - what is the actual origin of these (so-called) 'Royal Families' and what gives them the authority to be kept at state expense, generation after generation ?? Seems like a ripoff to me.

In England the reigning family are not even English by ancestry. They are German. It's ridiculous.

In 1800 things got really silly. Thomas Paine (the great democratic champion) wrote a book called 'The Rights of Man' which said that true sovereignty is with the people. The King of England banned it and Paine was forced to flee England. One bookseller who sold it was jailed for 12 years ! And what did it say - 'government should be by the people and for the people' !! How crazy does it get ? Royalists are living on another planet.

Kings were NEVER in God's plan. Read the bible. Israel was told it was foolishness.

Monarchy is UNDEMOCRATIC. It's nonsense that Royalists should hide behind their spurious pantomines of tradition. The civil leadership of society is democratically elected. The Royal family owe us, the people, over 1,000 years of taxes. They had to be forced to pay tax after centuries of claiming 'divine right to rule' and of denying the vote to taxpayers !!! What a fraud ! They (royal families) provide no leadership of any kind whatsoever. They are a complete anachronism and are parasistes on society.

Answer 1

Theft, murder and incest - simple as that.

Answer 2

Any group of people need a leader. Whether it is a monarch or a president or a group of representative. In terms of monarchy, the origin is that a leader would be chosen amongst his peers or self imposed. Through time, due to the influence that someone born of a chief would gain just by his birth, more and more families came to occupy the positin generation after generation.
Looking at more recent times, since the function has become hereditary, the system has once major benefit. Any heir to the throne is trained, educated, formed during his whole life to occupy that position. With currents monarch as well, there is a sense of duty instilled in them. There are many safeguards in the constitution or in precedents to remove an unfit monarch. However, unlike for elected upstart that become president or Prime ministers, there are hardly ever been any case where a monarch or heir to the throne has been involved in corruption, malversation, etc...
Finally, before making blanket statements about the cost, you may be interested that the Civil list was created when the Monarch at the time decided to grant to the state all the revenue of Royal estates in exchange of a yearly fixed revenue. This is why nowadays, the monarchy does not cost a single penny to the UK but is actually a net asset by about 1:10. Something no President or Prime Minister could achieve.
Finally, should a president replace the Queen, you would still have to pay the equivalent of a civil list, upkeep of presidential places (currently paid out of the Queen's purse by and large). So if you want a republic, be ready to pay a lot more taxes.!!!

Finally, If you argue that the family is german, the Queen Mother was Scottish, Queen Alexandra was Danish, Prince Philip is Greek, all, since George II are born in Britain, and even the Hanoverians were originally Scottish (that's how they got their claim to the throne, through the Stuart blood). The Stuart themselves having Tudor blood, as well as French Blood...... I guess that makes then German then... This is just one legend that has been used with no basis whatsoever!!

Answer 3

Bit late now, after all both HM Queen and HRH Prince Philip truly serviced in the British militia throughout WW2. Philip in the Royal military and HM Queen, then HRH Princess Elizabeth, served in the British military. different concern is that the Queen is Grand Admiral of the Fleet - Royal military. So, there you've it. Your question fairly places me in options of what Charles deGaulle did. He requested that each and every individual the american militia be removed from France. After a short pause, the individuals requested, "does this include each and every of the american squaddies buried on French soil.?" No, imprisoning all and sundry for in simple terms having a German ancestry isn't a good idea. the individuals who were interned throughout WW-2 were categorized as undesireable extraterrestrial beings and many them were truly lately arrived Germans. The Royal relations might want to have German relations rootes, yet they're no longer lately arrived - they and their ancestry were right here for the better component to easily about three hundred years. I recommend, in simple terms how lengthy does it take for someone to develop into English? And, what of Princes William and Harry? Their mom develop into positively English.

Answer 4

Evidently they were given the right to rule over us by God. Hence the motto `Dieu Et Mon Droit` of the British royal family. The British royal family are anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and are therefore ordained to do the job.
I think every monarch in the World, from China and Japan to the European Royal Houses and the British Royal Family claims to rule by Divine Right.

Quite.

Answer 5

By God apparently. God's representative on Earth being the pope - well until English Royalty fell out with one. But I have heard of a pope in the past making a young lady a princess. So any young ladies who wish to become real proncesses now know where to apply. America always wanted Royalty - maybe Britney? No she has to be a virgin....

Answer 6

Why should they be English? The word "England" doesn't appear in their title.

The Queen is Head of State in the United Kingdom. Her official title in the UK is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

Answer 7

I totally agree. The Royals have no right to live off our tax money, they should be abolished. They are no better than people sitting on their fat arses claming benefits. Their kids get the best education, holidays, homes, you name it - its not fair to the rest of the hard workers. Plus the Queen has all those homes, its ******* greedy!

Answer 8

In Ancient times,if you wanted to be the big dog,then you rode in front of your troops and mostly stood there yelling your orders to your men while the enemy tried to shoot arrows at you. If you wanted to become the ruler,then you did it by using your sword.
Not only did you kill your enemies,but their wives,children,the servants and their troops along with THEIR combined families to prevent anyone from that line to come back for retaliation.

Answer 9

I think Royal families have been around for a few years. It probably spawned from who ever owned lands and rights to certain privilages.

The Pharoes and Cesars were Kings/Queens and they go back into 1000's BC.

But you are right it is an absurd concept now

Answer 10

No one living to-day will see the end of the monarchy

Answer 11

Royal families were the ones that were most sucessful at robbing other pople, so they became more powerful

Its the best example where crime asset stripping by the police would do well.