It even sounds funny. Isn't it about time people woke up and understood there is no meaning to royalty? Kings? Queens? Who are these people? What a sad world.
2007-03-15 03:26:07 · 6 answers · asked by devvet 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I see your point but we need to look at this matter as a whole. Men from early ages need to pay respect to the powerful ones. They even believed that kings were God´s chosen ones to rule their nations. We still have a tendency today on relying on rulers of some kind (presidents, prime ministers and so forth). After enlightenment people started to refuse the idea of this "divine entitlement" but made up government systems that still used the basic concept of a "top leader" (elected or nominated). Unfortunately men are not tailored to anarchy, (which in a sense I think it would be great in a perfect world) so in thesis having a king or queen in today's world is not that much different from choosing a head of state. Some countries have even gone back to monarchy after experiencing other systems. England have a monarchy much more for traditional ties and "decorative" representation than practical ruling. Still, people love it! So, while we may disagree royalty still appeals to a great part of the world and we need to respect other nation's sovereignty (a word that derives from kingdom by the way) and its people's choices rather than advocating one single truth.
2007-03-16 04:04:26 · answer #1 · answered by marcelsilvae 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The meaning of Royalty in today's world:
Depends upon which nation (Kingdom) to be considered.
In England, Canada, and other Commonwealth nations, the monarch fulfills the duties of the Head of State. Much like many nations who have a President and Prime Minister, with the president serving in the roll of Head of State, with the Prime Minister as head of government.
However, in England, the monarch can in theory (and could) remove the prime minister if she felt there were an imminent danger to the country. She also serves as a loosely understood "check n' balance" system.
In other countries the monarch serves as Head of State, Commander of the Military and Head of the government.
The King of Spain ruled the government following the death of Franco, a dictator. Over time, the king has relinquished parts of his powers over to the now elected government. Without his actions as monarch, Spain could have gone into a political tailspin if it hadn't been for their King.
The King of Jordan has continued the policies of his deceased and popular father providing continuity from one government to the next. His people love him and the service to their country the King provides. The king works without fail to bridge understanding and peace in a region that is a hotbed for explosive political upheaval.
This is only a short narrative of the contributions and purpose of monarchs in todays world. I could write a thesis on this subject. But I won't bore you any further.
.
2007-03-15 16:17:36 · answer #2 · answered by Ms. Balls 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Royalty has a very deep meaning to those of us whose ancestors have lived under it for about a thousand years. Why don't you wake up and understand that we like things just the way they are?
2007-03-15 12:17:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Monarchy in Rome implied the seizure of power by the dynasties of the Caesars, and the destruction of republican government.
In recent centuries, monarchical rule was advocated by Jean Bodin. He taught that the authority of government derives from God and is assigned downward through the Divine Right of Kings.
Naturally, this idea was very popular with royal despots such as the Bourbons and the Stuarts. The king reigned over the common people "because God had put him in charge" (a claim also made by George W. Bush) and the duty of the people was to obey. Kneel and bow, servant, to God and your king.
The American Republic of 1789 was a direct repudiation of that claim. The founders of the United States saw authority as flowing upward from WE THE PEOPLE, and government existing only by their consent.
The American people do not give authority, but just assign powers, to their government, and these powers are limited and revocable.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that WE THE PEOPLE retain at least some ability to take back our Republic from the attempted despotism of would-be tyrants who want us to grovel and kneel and bow to their god and the government they think their god has placed in their hands.
The fallacy of divinely-imposed rule over the people is not extinct. There are plenty of uninformed Americans today who would cheerfully take us back to Jean Bodin's vision of a kingdom under God with rulers reigning over them by divine appointment.
The founding fathers, observing this failure to appreciate what they set up, are rolling in their graves.
2007-03-15 12:09:38 · answer #4 · answered by fra59e 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
use to once was royalty ruled with iron fists...nowadays its an unnecessary figurehead with no power...just most of the money, jewels, castles, country homes, etc; in their kingdom..so the poor stay poor and royalty stays rich....
2007-03-15 10:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by The Emperor of Ecstasy 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
http://www.dictionary.com
go to search type in royalty
2007-03-15 10:35:12 · answer #6 · answered by ♥ Mrs. Graham ♥ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋