Why should countries be funding royal families when there are people living in poverty? I have been an avid royal watcher for some time now and all of a sudden I have had an enlightenment. Why should there be such things as royal houses these days? {/QUOTE]
To annoy those on the top floor here in America (i.e.: people in the Social Register), to know that they cannot buy their way into the Peerage/Nobility, much less Royalty.
What makes royals better than commoners?
Nothing. Such artificially created divisions are meant to pass down social, cultural, and economic capital to their next of kin. These privileges give the illusion of "superiority". Here in America while titles of Nobility are forbidden, there are still nonetheless inherited social privileges. People send their children to Exeter, Andover, Farmington, Deerfield, Choate, Swiss boarding schools like Le Rosé in Gushtaad, which then feed into the Ivy League (or better, Oxford or Cambridge) and the social indoctrination and the acquired privileges and capital further cement one's place in the social system. It is simply outstanding the methods used to reinforce the social system. The government confiscated everyone's gold and reimbursed them with fiat money that isn't hedged against inflation.
Mine apologies for the digression, but when on the topic it's difficult to stop.
Why should people fund crazy royal lifestyles? I know this is the way of the world. There will always be rich and poor people.
I avoid the phrases "rich" and "poor" since they are far too simplistic and polarized, apart from a purely economic context (e.g.: "Only individuals who are very rich can purchase property on the upper east side"). There are many social classes, not even entirely dependent on wealth. Certain working-class blue collar families might have higher salaries than their middle-class neighbors, but the middle-class has more social and cultural capital than the working-class (the working-class still has a lower average salary than the middle-class, however. Although welfare recipients, the lower-working class, may considerably bring the working class average salary down. The working-class simply wants to eat dinner with their family, then watch football or car racing, have a beer, and be happy.
Above the Middle-class is the Upper-Middle class. One must never confuse the Upper-Middle class with nouveaux riches raised middle-class. The nouveaux riches are like an entirely different parallel society with those who follow a working-class culture such as "entertainers", mobsters, and the like, while Bill Gates would be an example of a culturally Middle-class noveau riche.)
I just am questioning my royal interest now.
It makes for a good sociological study. It isn't just the Royal and Peerage systems that are elitist, however. Here in America we have an affectation of Republicanism. One only needs study our history, you will find those who fought for the equal treatment promised by the constitution* met with a lot of resistance. There is a piece of folk wisdom: "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" yet, when the Irish and Italian immigrants did just that they passed prohibition laws. The American dream isn't something you earn; it's something you inherit. However, in the rare case you do "earn" it, you usually obtain it through an outside-the-box solution. Saving to do better for the next generation simply will not work.
*The Founders were also elitist; look up the whiskey rebellion and how the government acted as a buffer between the hoi polloi and the owners of the means of production. And how you needed to be White, male, and a property owner to vote[/FONT]
